THE CHALLENGES OF COSMOPOLITAN LEADERSHIP

Some moral theories deny that groups – for example, organizations or nation-states – can justifiably privilege their own goals and projects. According to these cosmopolitan moral theories, the particular ends to which group members are committed are ultimately subordinate to more general social ends such as human welfare. Unlike communitarianism, this cluster of theories is immune to the criticism that it contributes to psychological biases such as “in-group favoritism.” Whereas the communitarian argument encourages leaders to justify their behavior by appeal to the moral particularity of special relationships, cosmopolitan justifications appeal only to reasons that apply to rational actors more broadly.

At the foundation of the cosmopolitan approach is the idea that reasons of partiality – for example, “this is my group” – must be replaced with an impartial consideration of interests, thereby extending moral concern well beyond group members to include all of human society. Cosmopolitanism thus allows us to revive the argument that the importance of a leader's ends might justify rule-breaking behavior. When this kind of leader breaks the rules, she does so not because she holds a mistaken view about the exceptional importance of organizational goals but rather “because it was for a higher cause.”

To justify rule-breaking behavior by an appeal to the greater good, a cosmopolitan leader must show that her ends really are higher than ordinary organizational goals.