When you haven't spoken up before: a stewardship perspective

We often praise consistency as a virtue of leadership. But when consistency is treated as meaning staying silent in the face of bullying or discrimination, what happens to integrity?

Stewardship redistributes responsibility

Sometimes it seems like we count up the u-turns and shout out ‘weak’, ‘opportunist’ or ‘lacking a strong narrative’. Change implies a loss of integrity whereas holding consistently to a policy or position is strong. But if we view integrity as a commitment to stewardship - to our leaders holding their authority in trust for the benefit of all - then surely refusing to change the narrative becomes a matter of ego.

There are two ways of interpreting a pivot. The first treats leadership as narrative control. A public position becomes a personal asset. To change course is to lose face while to maintain it is to defend identity. The second sees authority as granted, not possessed. It exists to serve a shared purpose. When conditions change, so too might the responsible course of action. In this frame, refusing to adapt can be as ethically questionable as adapting too quickly.

Speaking up as renewed responsibility

Take the, to my mind, moral imperative to speak up if you witness discrimination, bias or bullying. Being the active steward of an organisation’s values, which typically commit to respect and inclusion, means acting to bring about change that serves those values. 

I have experienced bullying at work and seen people choose the path of a consistent position of denial.  When trust in institutions remains fragile, and trust in senior leaders is low in many organisations, perhaps what people seek is not rigid consistency, but evidence that power is being held carefully and, when necessary, re-calibrated in public view. Hence why the imperative to speak up applies to all levels of seniority. 

Of course, not every pivot is principled and expediency can masquerade as responsiveness. The ethical question lies less in the act of change itself than in the explanation: is the shift framed as damage control, or as renewed responsibility?

If leaders are prepared to acknowledge that their authority is held in trust, and to have the courage to revise their position even if until then they have stayed silent, then this is such a renewal. In addition, everyone can then gain that crucial thing: the psychological safety to speak up.

Whether it is finally tackling a culture of discrimination, bias or bullying, or accepting that a major idea or project hasn’t delivered results, are there not moments when an appeal to consistency is no longer the ethical approach?