By Simon L. Dolan and Joy J. Albrecht
Can we trust our leaders to operate according to a moral code and, even if we can, what definition of morality might they be applying?
Trust is one of leadership’s most valuable, and most fragile, assets. Yet lasting trust cannot be built through competence alone. Drawing on philosophy, history, and leadership research, Simon L. Dolan of the Global Future of Work Foundation and Joy J. Albrecht of Utah State University introduce the concept of moral trust and argue that it may be one of the most important leadership imperatives of our time.
Moral Trust as Leadership Imperative
For many years, scholars deliberately avoided writing about moral trust. Even in our own work on Managing by Values and Coaching by Values, we could have easily introduced and addressed moral considerations. Yet we, too, hesitated to engage directly with the language of morality2.
The reason is simple: throughout history, morality has often been invoked not only to elevate humanity but also to justify some of its darkest moments. In the name of moral righteousness, leaders, institutions, political movements, and even religious organizations have waged wars, persecuted minorities, suppressed dissent, and inflicted immense suffering. From ancient empires to medieval crusades, from ideological revolutions to modern forms of extremism, claims of moral superiority have frequently been used as instruments of power and control.
This observation does not imply that morality itself is dangerous. Rather, it reminds us that morality can be manipulated when it becomes detached from humility, compassion, and respect for human dignity. History teaches us that individuals and institutions are often most dangerous when they become absolutely convinced of their own moral infallibility.
Perhaps this is why non-religious scholars have resisted entering the study of morality for so long. However, as we reflect on the growing challenges facing contemporary leaders, we are convinced that avoiding the topic of morality is no longer an option. Organizations today face unprecedented levels of uncertainty, polarization, mistrust, and ethical complexity. In such an environment, leaders need more than competence, influence, and strategic vision. Rather, they must also earn a deeper form of trust rooted in integrity, character, and moral responsibility.
The highest purpose of morality is not to judge others. The highest purpose of morality is to elevate others.
As a result, this article represents our first serious attempt to explore the concept of moral trust from both a scholarly and a practical perspective. Our message to current and future leaders is straightforward: do not use morality as a weapon; do not use morality to divide, condemn, control, or diminish others. Instead, use the principles of morality to build communities characterized by trust, respect, fairness, compassion, and shared responsibility.
The highest purpose of morality is not to judge others. The highest purpose of morality is to elevate others.
As you read this article, we invite you to do so with an open mind, a critical perspective, and a healthy degree of humility. The ideas presented here are not intended as moral prescriptions. Rather, they are an invitation to reflect on how leaders can cultivate trust while remaining faithful to the values that give organizations, communities, and societies their strength.
Understanding Morality: A Force for Human Flourishing and Human Tragedy
In its simplest form, morality refers to the principles, values, beliefs, and standards that individuals and societies use to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad, and just from unjust. Morality guides human conduct by defining what people ought to do, how they should treat others, and what responsibilities they owe to their communities.
The Positive Side of Morality
Despite centuries of philosophical inquiry, there is no universally accepted definition of morality. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates viewed morality as the pursuit of virtue and wisdom, arguing that ethical behavior emerges from self-knowledge and rational reflection. His student Plato believed that moral behavior reflected alignment with universal ideals such as justice, courage, and temperance. Later, Aristotle proposed that morality consisted of cultivating virtues that enable individuals to flourish and achieve what he called “eudaemonia,” often translated as human flourishing or living well.
Centuries later, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that morality should be based on universal duties and principles. According to Kant, moral actions are those actions that are performed out of duty and respect for universal ethical laws, regardless of personal gain or consequences.
In contrast, philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill argued that morality focuses on the consequences of actions. Their utilitarian approach suggested that moral actions are those actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Although these philosophical traditions differ, they share a common assumption: morality seeks to guide human behavior toward outcomes that promote individual and collective well-being.
Throughout history, morality has undoubtedly been one of humanity’s most constructive forces. Many of the world’s greatest humanitarian achievements have emerged from moral convictions. For example, movements to abolish slavery, promote human rights, expand educational opportunities, protect vulnerable populations, advance gender equality, and defend human dignity were all inspired by moral convictions.
Moral ideals have inspired social reformers, community leaders, physicians, educators, activists, and ordinary citizens to challenge injustice and, in the process, improve society. The creation of hospitals, charitable organizations, humanitarian aid programs, and many social welfare initiatives can be traced to deeply held moral commitments.
In organizational settings, morality provides an essential foundation for trust, fairness, responsibility, and ethical leadership. Without moral principles, organizations would struggle to sustain cooperation, legitimacy, and social responsibility.
The Dark Side of Morality
And yet, morality has another side. History reveals a troubling paradox: some of humanity’s greatest atrocities have been committed by individuals and groups convinced that they were pursuing a higher moral purpose.
Wars, persecutions, inquisitions, genocides, ethnic cleansing campaigns, and ideological purges have often been justified through claims of moral superiority. Leaders and institutions have repeatedly portrayed opponents as immoral, dangerous, impure, or undeserving of basic human rights.
The problem is not morality itself. The problem arises when individuals become convinced that they possess absolute moral certainty and therefore have the right to impose their beliefs on others.
The problem arises when individuals become convinced that they possess absolute moral certainty and therefore have the right to impose their beliefs on others.
As discussed earlier, history offers many painful examples. The medieval Crusades were frequently justified as morally righteous campaigns undertaken in defense of sacred principles. Religious inquisitions persecuted those whose beliefs differed from officially sanctioned doctrines. European colonial powers often justified conquest and domination as moral missions intended to civilize other peoples.
In the twentieth century, perhaps no example is more disturbing than Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. The Holocaust was not presented by its perpetrators as an act of evil. On the contrary, Nazi ideology portrayed itself as morally justified, claiming to serve a supposedly higher vision of national, racial, and social purity. This tragic example demonstrates how moral language can be manipulated to rationalize unimaginable cruelty.
Similarly, modern extremist movements of various ideological, political, and religious orientations often justify violence by appealing to moral or sacred causes. Whether motivated by nationalism, religion, political ideology, or revolutionary zeal, such movements frequently portray themselves as defenders of virtue while inflicting suffering on others.
This pattern is not confined to any single religion, culture, nation, or historical period. It appears whenever leaders use moral certainty as a tool of domination rather than as a guide for human flourishing.
Conclusion
Morality is neither inherently liberating nor inherently oppressive. Its impact depends on how it is understood and applied. Morality grounded in humility, compassion, fairness, responsibility, and respect for human dignity can elevate individuals, organizations, and societies. On the other hand, morality that is grounded in arrogance, intolerance, exclusion, or fanaticism can become extremely dangerous.
For leaders, this distinction is critical. The objective of moral leadership is not to impose moral superiority on others. Rather, it is to create conditions in which people can trust one another, act responsibly, and pursue shared goals while respecting human dignity.
This is where the concept of moral trust becomes particularly relevant. Moral trust emerges when followers believe that leaders are guided by ethical principles that serve not only organizational objectives but also the broader well-being of individuals and communities. Moral trust transforms morality from an instrument of judgment into a foundation for trust, cooperation, and collective flourishing.
