Leadership constitutes such an important topic I’ve split this column into two parts. This month I’ll examine whether or not leaders should change their leadership styles. Next month I’ll conclude with my take on situational ethics.

The question of whether or not leaders should change their leadership styles is a rhetorical one. The answer is a resounding yes. All leaders should remain willing and even eager to change their leadership styles. Some contend your style is your style and there’s no changing. I disagree. My consulting firm helps leaders change their styles in ways that promote short- and long-term success.

More questions arise. Is changing your leadership style easy or hard? Do you understand the benefits of change?

In an article written in 2013 for Techwell.com, Anuj Magazine asks: How easy is it for leaders to change their leadership styles? “Leading people and situations is not a one-size-fits-all game. Leadership styles evolve, and different situations demand the demonstration of different styles,” Magazine stated.

Think of prominent leaders — from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi to Winston Churchill, Eleanor Roosevelt to Oprah Winfrey, Steve Jobs to Bill Gates, Corazon Aquino to Coco Chanel. Heck, even Mike Shanahan to Gary Kubiak. They’re all different leaders with different backgrounds, passions, philosophies and visions. They all started somewhere and, I’d submit, had to refine and perhaps even redefine their leadership styles. Was that redefinition, in part, situational? Did these men and women bend with the times or modify their leaderships styles in response to the circumstances they faced?

In a more sarcastic point in my life many years ago, I looked upon leaders who changed to fit the circumstances as prostituting their values. It was one of those times when I believed I knew everything about anything. In fact, I knew little about only a few things. I would derisively call it situational ethics as if I really understood what that meant. 

Without roaming too far afield and away from the point of this column, let me review a few definitions.

Situational ethics is the position that moral decision-making is contextual or dependent on a set of circumstances. Situational ethics holds that moral judgments must be made within the context of the entirety of a situation and all normative features of a situation must be viewed as a whole.

Situational ethics takes into account the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically rather than judging it according to absolute moral standards. In situational ethics, within each context, it’s not a universal law that’s to be followed, but the law of love. A Greek word used to in the Bible to describe love is “agape.”

Is any of this relevant in today’s marketplace? I contend it’s not only relevant, but also critical to the long-term success of any organization. By the end of the 2020s, the employment landscape will be radically different from the one in which we began this century. Automation, demographics and inequality have the potential to dramatically reshape our world. Studies point to a collision of forces that could trigger economic disruption far greater than we’ve experienced over the past 60 years.

As the saying goes, preparation is half the battle. Leader preparation will be key to future success.