This essay was partially translated from the 100-page literature review in my master’s thesis (in French), which the petty bureaucrats from the marketing department at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQÀM) refused (excluding the part on the genesis of leadership).
”To the self-serving, nothing shines forth; To the self-promoting, nothing is distinguished; To the self-appointing, nothing bears fruit; To the self-righteous, nothing endures.” - Lao Tzu, Verse 24 (Laozi and Star, 2008, p. 30)
The genesis of leadership
The question of the proper form of governance and, consequently, the qualities or “virtues” of leadership is a millennial one. In the east, Lao Tzu was a pioneer in ethics and governance constantly reinterpreted by the successive emperor dynasties. In the West, we can notably trace this question back to Plato’s Republic. In this article, I will consider principally the work of Western philosophers.
The guardians in Plato’s Republic
For Socrates, or at least the Platonic representation of Socrates [1], the virtue of the guardian – that is physically fit, courageous, loyal as a dog, has ardor yet temperance, and wise as a philosopher [sect. 375-376] - of the city are natural [sect. 374] (Platon and Leroux, 2016, p. 146‑149). It should be no wonder that the ideal leader for Plato is a philosopher since the author undoubtedly has a vested interest in this idea.
Yet, if the qualities of the guardian are natural, the fact remains that education is also important to foster the right temperament. Accordingly, music and poetry are deemed essential because the notion of rhythm was associated with harmony, and poetry as an art was associated with speech [2] [sect. 398-403] (Platon and Leroux, 2016, p. 183‑193).
As one might expect from a society in which citizens are periodically called to take arms to defend the nation, gymnastics is also vital to the education of the guardians of the city (polis). Yet, the role of gymnastics is to develop more than physical aptitudes; gymnastics is also a vessel through which men [3] forge their moral character (most notably the virtue aforementioned) [sect. 411-412] (Platon and Leroux, 2016, p. 202‑204).
Naturally, the purpose of education of the guardian is for the superior interest of the city (polis) [sect. 412] (Platon and Leroux, 2016, p. 205‑206). Accordingly, proper education is centered around teaching each citizen how to accomplish his natural role based on his natural disposition and to develop an intuitive flair for the common good [sect. 423-424] (Platon and Leroux, 2016, p. 219‑222).
Ultimately, for Plato, the four virtues of the ideal city are incarnated in the role exercised by each citizen. For this Greek philosopher, wisdom is the exclusivity of the leaders and courage is the domain of soldiers [sect. 429] (Platon and Leroux, 2016, p. 230‑231). That said, moderation is a virtue that must be cultivated by all citizens from the bottom to the top of the hierarchy [sect. 430-432] (idem, p. 232‑235).
Finally, ”[…] justice consists in taking care of one’s assigned duties and not to dissipate oneself across multiple tasks […]” [my translation] (idem, p. 237). In a nutshell, Plato’s elitist view of leadership is one where individuals possess natural dispositions that must be cultivated through proper education.
Although recognizing the unpopularity of their view, experts on intelligence such as Jordan and Richard Haier (2017) [4] suggest that not only general intelligence (IQ) is highly genetic but is also the best predictor we know of both academic and professional success.
Notably, during his 2017 lectures at the University of Toronto, Jordan Peterson presented that an individual must possess an IQ between 116 and 130 to be a business executive and an IQ between 110 and 115 to be a middle manager. [5]
As such, a hundred years of psychological research on intelligence seems to corroborate Plato’s idea that one occupation is related to one’s natural aptitude and that one has to be relatively intelligent to be in a leadership position.
One interesting ethical question put forth by Jordan Peterson during his early years as a public figure was the necessity of including cognitively disadvantaged citizens into the workforce as jobs are becoming increasingly complex (see notably the discussion with Richard Haier). [4]
Leadership and virtue ethics
For Aristotle (1992, Book I, Chapter II), the ultimate goal in life is to find happiness. Yet, all forms of happiness are not equal. As such, materialism is the lowest form of happiness, politics (or honor) is an intermediate form of happiness, and wisdom is the highest form of happiness of all (p. 42-44).
We would later find a similar notion in John Stuart Mill’s (2023, chapter 2) utilitarianism with a gradation of pleasures that leads to happiness (lower forms of pleasures vs intellectual forms of pleasures), albeit that, for Mill (2023, p.17), happiness is defined as the function of pleasure and an absence of suffering, whereas for Aristotle pleasure is an intrinsic feeling inherent to living a virtuous life. As such, the virtuous man for Aristotle is intrinsically motivated and self-determined (Ryan et Deci, 2000) to act according to the principles of virtue.
For Aristotle (1992, Book I, Chapter IV), human is a social and a political creature (p. 51). As such, the happiness of an individual is to be considered within a broader social context, that is, the context of the city-state (polis). In turn, politics aim to foster collective happiness, that is, ensuring that all men within the city are living a virtuous life.
Virtue for Aristotle (1992, p. 74) can be one of two kinds, that is, intellectual values and moral values: “Wisdom, practical intelligence, and prudence are intellectual values; generosity and temperance are moral values.” [My translation] According to Aristotle (Book II, Chapter I), intellectual values can be learned through formal teaching while moral virtues are developed through the practice of the proper mores (that is, customs or traditions). Naturally, the practice of good moral habits has to be learned by children from the youngest age (p. 79-80).
Therefore, there are two components to learning virtue: a cognitive component and a behavioral one; the development of those is meant to temper the emotional component.
Whereas moral virtues have to be learned through repetition, those are not meant to be mechanical learning but rather an internalization of the underlying principles because the proper practice of virtue is essentially circumstantial (Aristotle, 1992, Book II, Chapter IV).
Moreover, it is also essential to consider that virtue, for Aristotle (1992, Book III, Chapter I) is a conscious and deliberate act. That is, “positive externalities”, if I share borrow the expression to modern economics, are not virtuous actions if they are accidental or unconscious.
For example, 12% of avoidable food loss in Canada occurs during the retailing phase. [6] If, hypothetically, I am a grocery store owner and a homeless person finds his or her meal in the garbage of my commerce, then I am not a virtuous person. But, if I decide to salvage the food by donating it to a local non-profit instead of trashing it, then I am acting virtuously according to Aristotle.
To make a long story short, virtue for Aristotle is the circumstantial and fragile equilibrium between a lack or an excess, in a given time and place, of a specific quality that could be measured and represented along a semantic bipolar scale.
Aristotle’s moral virtues can be synthesized as the following [7]:
Since virtue is embedded in a social context, and more specifically in a political one where laws are specifically meant to create virtuous citizens and by extension a virtuous city, justice for Aristotle (Book V) is related to the respect of the laws, as the laws themselves are hypnotized to be just.
Now, concerning the intellectual virtues, those are the rational ones: science, prudence, wisdom, and intelligence (Aristotle, 1992, Book V, Chapter II). As such, Aristotle preconizes the teaching of syllogisms and inductive thinking as tools for rationally analyzing and understanding the world.
Prudence, according to Aristotle (1992, p. 243-244) is defined as “the capacity to deliberate and judge things properly for things that can be good and useful for him, not based on particular considerations, such as health and vitality, but based on general considerations related to his virtue and his happiness.” [My translation] As such, Aristotle considers prudence to be a deliberate judgment.
Moreover, prudence, for Aristotle (1992, Book V, Chapter VI), is thus a cardinal virtue distinct from political science yet quite similar. The main difference between prudence and political science would be that prudence primarily concerns individuals while politics concerns the city-state (polis) as a whole.
To deliberate properly, though, one must be sagacious and perspicacious (Aristotle, 1992, Book V, Chapter VII) and have practical intelligence (common sense) (idem, chapter VIII).
In fine, the three qualities of prudence, intelligence, and common sense converge toward the greater goal of living a virtuous life, thus allowing the man to become a philosopher (Aristotle, 1992, Book V, chapter IX). Naturally, as for Plato, Aristotle also clearly has a vested interest in the idea that being a philosopher is the apotheosis of the good life.
Virtue ethics and modern leadership
Some modern philosophers applying virtue ethics such as Rosalind Hursthouse (1991) primarily concentrate on the role of the righteous agent as a role model, that is, as a source of inspiration to mimic when making difficult decisions such as the one to take an abortion for a teenage girl.
Although it is certainly important for business or political leaders to have good mentors and role models to look up to, I do not think virtue ethics is about “becoming one’s teacher”. Otherwise, the leader can only hope, at best, to become a pale copy of his or her role model.
Furthermore, one ought not to defer to his or her teacher(s) as a shortcut for the proper circumstantial moral and intellectual heavy-lifting of pondering about the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Rather, I think virtue ethics is about being a self-determined individual (Ryan and Deci, 2000) who has internalized the first principle learned by observing people of great character to develop one own moral character. That is, a leader must find his or her own idiosyncratic psychological integrity to become individuated to borrow the expression from Carl Gustave Jung (Beebe, 2005), and yet remain deferring toward his or her predecessors.
”To equal those commanded honorably, that is the good. Trying to elevate oneself over the good with an excess of sophistication, is not the good. What’s more, triumphing with the art of war has always been considered the good, but let me tell you this: that which is above the good is often worse than the mediocre.” [My translation] Sun Tzu, Article IV (Sun Zi et al., 1993, p. 27)
Finally, although virtue ethics truly is an interesting lens for analyzing potential moral issues, one must not become so over-reliant to one episteme as to fall for the law of the instrument (Allaire, 1984, p. 4).
As such, the proper evaluation of moral issues by modern leaders requires considering those issues from multiple angles using, notably, virtue ethics (Aristotle, 1992; Marc Aurèle and Meunier, 1993), deontological principles by relying on heuristic such as Kant’s categorical imperative, and some form of cost-benefit analysis based on utilitarian principles (Mill, 2023) to adopt a genuine stakeholder approach (Freeman and McVea, 2001). [9]
Visionary leadership: a myth or a reality?
”To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion. To assume the right to new values—that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit.[…] But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child? Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: ITS OWN will, willeth now the spirit; HIS OWN world winneth the world’s outcast.”
** I originally read Frederich Nietzsche et al. (2006, p. 64‑65) in French, but I used here Thomas Common’s (1998) translation from Project Guttenberg to stay true to the original meaning.
Managers and their gurus from all horizons like to indulge in all the trendy buzzwords prevalent in the Zeitgeist (spirit of the time). As such, if we are to believe the opinion leaders populating the virtual agora, almost everything is either a question of strategy, innovation, or leadership (or all of those at the same time!). But, if everything is leadership, innovation, and/or strategic, aren’t those terms losing their most fundamental meaning? In this context, what exactly is this so-called visionary leadership?
Start with why
In his best-seller “Start with Why”, Simon Sinek (2009) explores the achievement of leaders greater than life such as Orville and Wilbur Wright (p. 96-98), Martin Luther King Jr. (p. 126-130) as well as Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak (p. 209-213). According to him, every great leader in this world shares the unique ability to deeply inspire those around them because they all communicate in the very same way (idem, p. 6-7).
The core idea of the book is what the author refers to as the “golden circle” (Sinek, 2009, chapter 3). According to Simon Sinek, whereas most leaders start by explaining the what, the how, and the why of their plans, great leaders are doing the exact opposite. That is, they start by explaining the why of their vision to activate the limbic brain (aka the social brain), then explain the how, and finally conclude with the what because that cognitive aspect is managed by the prefrontal cortex (idem, chapter 4). [10]
If we were to examine the previous proposition through the lens of the Aristotelian rhetoric triangle, we could say that the orator starts with an appeal to emotions (pathos) by presenting an exciting vision of the future and, once (s)he has emotionally primed the audience, concludes with the rational aspect of the project (logos) and by doing so establishes his or her authority as a leader (ethos).
According to Simon Sinek (2009, chapter 5), the key to successful communication lies in the clarity of the message as well as in the leader’s discipline and consistency in both words and acts. In short (idem, 2009, p. 227): “All the leaders in the world must have two things: they must have a vision of the world that does not exist and they must have the ability to communicate it.”
As a side note, it is interesting to consider that when using storytelling, brands are better off presenting themselves as underdogs versus top dogs because everyone at some point in their life has felt down in the dumps. Accordingly, people tend to resonate with and feel inspired by the stories about an underdog overcoming the odds to rise from a zero to a hero (Delgado-Ballester, 2021).
A typology of visionary leaders
On another note, according to Westley and Mintzberg (1989, p. 19): “Strategic visionaries are leaders who use their familiarity with the issues as a springboard to innovation, who are able to add value by building new perceptions on old practice.” According to them, there’s a symbiotic relation between the leader and his or her audience; the leader not only feeds him or herself from the energy of the crowd but also catalyzes their energy within and then reflects the excess in energy to the crowd as did, for example, Aldolf Hitler (idem, p. 20-21). [11]
Westley and Mintzberg (1989) propose a typology of five visionary leaders: four CEOs and one former prime minister.
First, Edwin Land (Polaroid), the creator, had the incredible power of mentally visualizing the prototypes for innovative cameras and then immersing himself in his laboratory for many days in a row until he came up with something great. As a result, his passion, creativity, and engagement allowed him to recruit top-tier scientists for his projects (Westley and Mintzberg, 1989, p. 24‑25).
Next, Steve Jobs (Apple), the proselyte, did not have the imagination nor the technical wiz of Edwin Land, [12] but rather an incredible power of persuasion that allowed him to democratize the use of personal computers. That being said, his intransigence and zeal eventually led to his expulsion from Apple Computer in 1985 (Westley and Mintzberg, 1989, p. 24‑25). Actually, Steve Jobs was fired by John Scully, a man Jobs personally convinced to quit his executive position at Pepsi Co. to join the direction board at Apple (Sinek, 2009, p. 195‑196).
The third leader from Westley and Mintzberg’s (1989, p. 26-27) typology is the only one who was not from the business world. René Lévesque (Parti Québécois), the idealist, dreamt of a utopic nation (More, 1997) and a bright future according to which the Province of Québec was to emancipate and acquire its independence from the Canadian federation. Alas, an idealized shiny future is essentially difficult to communicate to constituents. To this day, after two failed referendum attempts, the province of Québec remains a part of Canada (even though no one Prime minister, in Québec, since Lévesque has accepted to sign the Canadian constitution since its repatriation in 1982).
The fourth leader, Lee Iacocca (Chrysler), the bricoleur,[13] had a synthetic mind that allowed him to brilliantly lead his teams (Westley and Mintzberg, 1989, p. 27‑29). If Iacocca managed to save Chrysler in its time of need and raise the value of the shares by 2.9 times, most unfortunately, he held on to notoriety and power for too long. By the end of its second tenure as CEO, Chrysler’s share had dropped by 31% below the market (Collins, 2001, p. 7‑8).
Westley and Mintzberg’s (1989, p. 29‑30) last leader, Jan Carlzon (SAS), the diviner, had not only greater political aptitudes but also the aptitude to inductively predict the future which allowed him to present vividly his vision of the future to his collaborators.
According to Westley and Mintzberg (1989, p. 30-31), leadership is both innate and the product of favorable circumstances. Furthermore, they argue that visionary leadership is not necessarily synonymous with excellence in leadership. On the one hand, not all leaders are required to be visionary. On the other hand, every leader in their typology had quirks that ended up exasperating their collaborators and eventually led them to their own demise.
In that regard, Margarita Mayo (2017), in a short article in HBR, asked herself: “If Humble People Make the Best Leaders, Why Do We Fall for Charismatic Narcissists?” She suggests that narcissistic leaders, in their grandiosity, are more adept at self-presentation than humble leaders. Moreover, according to her, during times of crisis, those being extremely emotionally loaded, people tend to fall for the romantic vision sold by the charismatic leaders.
As such, it seems that visionary leadership can be a double-edged blade for companies. On the one hand, healthy visionary leadership can foster collective creativity as was the case at Pixar (Catmull, 2008). On the other hand, an ambitious and intransigent leader has the potential to create a toxic culture as was the case at Amazon (Manjunatheshwara, 2015).
Leadership in the military
Jocko Willink and Lief Babin (2015, 2018) are former military officers who served in the U.S. Navy SEAL during the Iraq war. Nowadays, they work as business consultants and executive coaches, teaching business executives how to lead according to the military principles they learned in the special forces.
The central theme of “extreme ownership” (Willink and Babin, 2015) is that no matter what, for the best or the worst, leaders are always responsible for what happens within their team(s). As such, no matter what happens, leaders cannot blame their subordinates – they must take full ownership; they must take “extreme ownership” to solve the problems.
This necessity to take ownership is close to Jim Collins’ (2001, p. 1) concept of a “Level 5 leader”: “They routinely credit others, external factors, and good luck for their companies’ success. But when results are poor, they blame themselves.”
Yet, although Willink and Babin (2015, Chapter 12) insisted on the idea that leadership is dichotomous, this aspect of their book was misunderstood. As such, in a subsequent book, they insisted on the idea that: “In most cases, rather than extremes, leaders must find the equilibrium between opposing forces that pull in opposite directions. […] Achieving the proper balance in each of the many dichotomies is the most difficult aspect of leadership.” (Willink and Babin, 2018, p. XVI‑XVII)
In a nutshell, taking full responsibility for the situation at hand is one of the rare aspects of leadership that requires a leader to be intransigently inflexible; for the rest, most aspects of leadership require an Aristotelian Virtues Ethics.
Taking ownership of one outcome is also an important principle in the practice of martial arts. For example, in his twenty principles of Karate, Master Gichin Funakoshi taught that: “Calamity springs from carelessness.” [14]
One of the important pillars of the principle of extreme ownership is that there are “no bad teams, only bad leaders.” (Willink and Babin, 2015, Chapter 2). They report that, during a training exercise, a special unit officer in training was shamelessly complaining about being in a failing team. Therefore, the officers in charge of the exercise switched the leadership between the lowest-performing and the highest-performing team. Thanks to his great leadership, the officer in training assigned to the weakest team successfully managed to raise the spirit of this so-called losing team, coordinate every member appropriately, and steal first place from its former team.
As they would later teach in the dichotomy of leadership, to achieve such success, a leader must “own it all, but empower others” (Willink and Babin, 2018, Chapter 2), be “resolute, but not overbearing” (idem, chapter 3), “train[ing] hard, but train[ing] smart” (idem, chapter 5), and “hold people accountable, but don’t hold their hands” (idem, chapter 8).
Naturally, a great leader must always keep his or her ego in check (Willink and Babin, 2015, Chapter 4). Once again, this appeal to the proper balancing of the dichotomies, that is, to be “aggressive, but not reckless” (Willink and Babin, 2018, Chapter 6), to be “disciplined, but not rigid” (idem, chapter 7), to be “humble, but not passive” (idem, chapter 11), and to be “focused, but detached” (idem, chapter 12). [15]
One of the most interesting, yet somehow counter-intuitive, ideas proposed by Willink and Babin (2015, Chapter 8) is that of “decentralized command”. Stereotypically, executives from the business world might expect an extremely hierarchical organization such as the U.S. Army to be resolutely bureaucratic. Yet, the unpredictable nature of war (Murray, 2018) creates the absolute necessity for petty officers to be able to make quick decisions on the spot in the absence of their superior officers.
As such, the parameters of the mission must be crystal clear and explained in simple terms to soldiers (Willink and Babin, 2015, Chapter 6), the organization’s formal structures must be flexible enough to allow for officers to “lead up and down the chain of command” (idem, chapter 10), and the officers themselves must learn to be both “a leader and a follower” (Willink and Babin, 2018, Chapter 9).
As such, a key concept to the principles of extreme ownership and the dichotomy of leadership is of the utmost necessity for leaders to create more leaders, not yet more followers. Notably, they suggest that “the strategic goal of training must always be to build capable leaders at every level of the team.” (Willink and Babin, 2018, p. 123)
It might seem counter-intuitive for some leaders to train their replacement - that is, to create a potential threat to their authority - but that’s exactly what level 5 leaders do (Collins, 2001). Yet, it is usually in the best interest of the leader himself or herself to train capable leaders with the capacities to succeed them because “when mentored and coached properly, the junior leader can eventually replace the senior leader, allowing the senior leader to move on to the next level of leadership.” (Willink and Babin, 2015, p. 269)
The personality of the leader
It is recommended to measure both personality and intelligence to predict the future performance of job candidates (Peterson, 2011). Notably, Jordan Peterson (2011) suggests that both academic and job performance can optimally be predicted by measuring general intelligence (aka the G-factor or IQ), conscientiousness (especially industriousness in the NEO-PI-R-4), and emotional stability.
Notably, a meta-analysis covering 92 meta-analyses over a century of research in psychology (n > 1 100 000) suggests trait conscientiousness is indeed the best non-cognitive predictor of job performance.
That being said, the psychometrics measurement procedure proposed by Jordan Peterson (2011, p. 5) usually takes 45-60 minutes to administer which, although having incredible accurate prediction power, can prove to be pricey or cumbersome for HR. [16]
Interestingly, contrary to Jordan Peterson’s unwavering belief in the predictive power of IQ, Allaire and Firsirotu (2004, p. 46) believe that intelligence has a curvilinear relation with managerial performance: “For the business leader, an IQ of 120 is necessary. More is redundant and potentially a liability.” [My translation]
On another note, Judge et al. (2002a.b.) realized two meta-analyses based on the five-factor model of personality with leadership and job satisfaction. Those studies covered respectively 73 samples and 163 samples. It is interesting to note that all correlation between the personality traits and both leadership and job satisfaction goes in the same direction. For example, being conscientious, extroverted, and emotionally stable are predictors of both leadership and job satisfaction. That being said, creativity is somewhat predictive of leadership but is marginal for predicting job satisfaction.
Moreover, emotional intelligence (EQ) seems to be particularly important for modern business leaders: “A full 70% of male leaders who rank in the top 15% in decision-making skills also score the highest in emotional intelligence skills. In contrast, not one single male leader with low EQ was among the most skilled decision makers.” (Bradberry et al., 2009, p. 137)
Yet, based on a sample of half a million managers, it is also suggested that while middle managers were the most emotionally intelligent employees within U.S. corporations, the executive managers are the least emotionally intelligent among all (Bradberry et al., 2009, p. 138-139) …
Conclusion
”Principles are guidelines for human conduct that are proven to have enduring, permanent value. They're fundamental. They're essentially unarguable because they are self-evident. One way to quickly grasp the self-evident nature of principles is to simply consider the absurdity of attempting to live an effective life based on their opposites. I doubt that anyone would seriously consider unfairness, deceit, baseness, uselessness, mediocrity, or degeneration to be a solid foundation for lasting happiness and success. Although people may argue about how these principles are defined or manifested or achieved, there seems to be an innate consciousness and awareness that they exist.” - Stephen Covey (1990, p. 17)
In conclusion, leadership is both innate and learned. As such, every single one of us has the potential to become a leader under the right circumstances if he or she can leverage his or her own unique inner and external competitive assets.
Yet, to be really effective, a leader-to-be must not only develop a strong moral code, that is, internalizing the principle of Virtue ethics, but also learn to master the first principles of the art of commandment (Sun Zi et al., 1993, p. 44-45).
Indeed, knowledge is power. That is, knowledge both as an asset and as a capability is absolutely essential to modern strategy and business performance (Varadarajan, 2020).
If you’d like to acquire more knowledge about yourself and, as a consequence, gain more power over your destiny, you can measure your personality on the five-factor model of personality for free on Truity or consider investing USD10 for an official NEO-PI-R-4 test.
Additionally, if you’d like to measure your emotional intelligence (EQ), I recommend purchasing “Emotional Intelligence 2.0” by Bradberry et al. (2009). Not only this short book is quite easy to read and packed with tons of practical exercises aimed at improving your EQ, but it also grants access to two trials (one before reading the book and one after reading it) on the online psychometric test developed by the authors.
From now on, dear leaders-to-be, the future is in your hands! With no further ado, let me tell you the story of once upon a time, there was this incredible leader who…
End notes
1. It is difficult to date precisely the redaction of Plato’s Republic, but its redaction probably took many years; its completion is assumed to be between 374 and 354 BC depending on the expert (Platon and Leroux, 2016, p. 22‑25) which would suggest that the Republic could be one of Plato’s later works. While Plato was undoubtedly profoundly inspired by his master, it is generally proposed that Socrates, as a character in the Platonic dialogues, progressively becomes a proxy for Plato’s own voice, that is, the expression of his own philosophical views.
2. In Greek, the term logos refers both to speech and logic since those two constructs are deemed to be strongly associated with one another. To be honest, though, I was inspired by endless hours of watching Jordan Peterson on that idea.
3. Let’s be transparent on the fact that Athena – and really the whole Hellenistic world - was most definitely staunchly patriarchal and, for all practical purposes, highly androcentric as a society.
4.
5.
6. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-reducing-waste/
7. If we consider those virtues through the five-factor model of personality, we can suggest that those map on pretty high conscientiousness, around the 50-75th percentile for agreeableness, and relatively low neuroticism. Additionally, the virtuous agent, according to Aristotle, would score high on the honest-humility factor in the HEXACO model.
8. Aristotle doesn’t give a specific name for the lack of this quality.
9. The beginner in business ethics might want to consider reading “Justice, what is the right thing to do?” by Micheal Sandel (2010), notably chapters 2 and 5 for a contemporary explanation of utilitarianism according to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and Kant’s categorical imperative.
10. A limit here is that Simon Sinek is a bachelor in anthropology, not a neurologist. For advanced readers, an interesting scientifically written book is “Beyond IQ, beyond EQ, Social Intelligence” by Daniel Goleman (2007).
11. Regardless of his moral character, Adolf Hitler was nonetheless an exceptional orator, for example:
12. Steve Wozniak was the one who engineered the first Mcintosh computer (Sinek, 2009, p. 209‑210).
13. This term is in French in the original paper (Westley and Mintzberg, 1989, p. 27): “The term ‘bricoleur’ refers to a common figure in France: a man who frequents junkyards and there picks up the stray bits and pieces which then puts together to make new objects.”
14. Nijū kun. (2023, November 28). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nij%C5%AB_kun
15. Having discussed with Jocko Willink a few times, Jordan Peterson retrospectively was amazed that such a massive man with an incredible potential for aggression can maintain full control over his primal impulses.
16.