Chapter 2: Employers Are Not Leaders

When Jake started his new job at a manufacturing plant, he believed his supervisor had his back. On his first day, the supervisor shook his hand and told him he was now "a part of the family." Jake was assured his hard work would lead to promotions and job security, and he took those words to heart. He showed up early, took on extra shifts, and never questioned company policies. When safety protocols were ignored to sustain production demands, he assumed it must be a part of the job. When his paycheck was missing his overtime pay, he trusted that management would fix it eventually.

Months passed, and Jake started to notice a pattern. Overtime issues were never solved, safety concerns were brushed off, and when layoffs came, loyalty meant nothing. He knew his supervisor was a leader and had his back, but the supervisor was eventually replaced by someone who was more of a "team player." It's not that his supervisor didn't have his back, but rather that his employer didn't care. Jake then realized that his supervisor was not a leader, but another representative of the company's interests.

Stories like Jake's are common, and it might have happened to you at some point-perhaps it is going on right now. This is because many workers assume their employer or even their direct manager is a leader in the way a mentor or coach might be. In reality, it is essential to understand that employment is a transactional relationship, not a personal commitment. Employers provide wages in exchange for labor, but that does not mean they are invested in their employees' growth or well-being.

This chapter will start you on understanding employment ethics by breaking down why employment is not the same as leadership, why this distinction matters, and how understanding the true nature of the employer-employee relationship can help workers manage their careers with clarity. Not all managers or employers are leaders, and assuming they are can be a costly mistake.

Defining the Employer-Employee Relationship

It is often the case that people enter the workforce believing that their employer's role is to guide, support, and develop them professionally. While some companies do foster growth and mentorship, the fundamental nature of employment is not based on leadership-it is a transaction. The employer-employee relationship is built on an exchange in which the worker provides labor, skills, and productivity, while the employer provides financial compensation in the form of wages and benefits.

This distinction is essential to understanding employment ethics. Unlike a leadership relationship, which is built on mutual trust, employment is structured around business needs and financial goals.

Work vs. Employer vs. Employment Ethics

It is important to understand the difference between work ethics, employer ethics, and employment ethics. These terms are often confused or used interchangeably, although they represent distinct aspects of the employment relationship.:

Work ethics are the behaviors and values all employers expect from their workforce and are often used as metrics to evaluate performance. The primary characteristics of employee ethics are productivity, reliability, autonomy, and collaboration. Employer ethics are the behaviors and values that the entire workforce expects from their employers, and which they are historically required to legally enforce. These include a safe and secure workspace, a professional relationship, environmental responsibility, and a community-supporting wage. Just as workers are expected to uphold their work ethics, employers are expected to do the same with employer ethics. Employment ethics represents the dynamic relationship between work ethic and employer ethics. When both parties are actively trying to meet the demands of the other, that is an ethical workplace.

These definitions illustrate how employment is a transaction between two parties and not a leader-follower relationship. It becomes easier to see the competing interests of both parties and where ethical challenges can arise between them. With this in mind, let's explore how wages, benefits, and productivity shape this dynamic and why assuming good faith from both sides can sometimes lead to unexpected consequences.

Employment as a Transaction

Employment is not a gift or a favor. It is a contractual exchange. The company pays an employee based on the value of their work, and, in return, the employee commits their time and skills. Currently, this transaction is influenced by factors such as market demand, industry wages, and labor laws.

While this system can function ethically, it also creates room for ethical concerns. Employers aim to maximize efficiency and minimize costs, which can sometimes lead to profit-prioritization practices over workforce health and well-being. Likewise, employees might feel pressured to overextend themselves, accepting unethical conditions due to the necessity to meet their personal and familial needs. Both sides often assume the other will act ethically, but ultimately, there is no guarantee of this.

Why Employment Is Not Leadership

One of the most common misconceptions in the workplace is the belief that managers or employers are natural leaders. However, as will be highlighted later, leaders and managers require different skills and have distinct sources of power. Zaleznik (2004) explains that managers focus on structure, processes, and business efficiency, instinctively working to solve problems quickly. On the other hand, leaders focus on people and are necessary in times of crisis, conflict, controversy, or change.

As you will see in the next section, this distinction matters because leadership involves a deeper level of responsibility to people, while employment operates within a framework of business interests. A boss may offer encouragement, but that does not necessarily mean they have the employee's best interests at heart. Workers who assume ethical leadership from their employer risk misunderstanding the nature of their job security, compensation, and workplace treatment. By recognizing that employment is transactional and not necessarily based on ethical leadership, workers can better manage their careers, advocate for their rights, and make informed decisions about their professional future.

Why This Distinction Matters

It is easy to assume that employers-or even direct managers-will always act in the best interest of their employees. Many workers go into a job expecting their employer to be a guiding force-a leader who values their well-being as much as their productivity. However, this assumption can be misleading and even dangerous.

Reality of Employment vs. Leadership

We've established thus far that a common misconception in the workplace is that employers or managers automatically embody leadership qualities. While some do, employment itself does not guarantee leadership. Employers may emphasize the importance of leadership skills, but when it comes to a promotion, it is the management skills that one has that employers value the most. This is because an employer's primary role is ensuring that the business runs smoothly, not necessarily mentoring or advocating for employees.

This distinction is crucial because workers who mistakenly view their employer as a leader may develop unrealistic expectations. They might assume their company will act in their best interest, prioritize employee well-being, or provide career growth opportunities. When these expectations are unmet, employees may feel disillusioned, undervalued, or even exploited. Understanding this difference can help workers make more informed career choices and deal with workplace dynamics more effectively.

Employer's Motivations: Profit and Market Competitiveness

Employers operate within a framework dictated by market competition, industry standards, and financial objectives. Their main goal is to maximize profits. This focus does not inherently make them unethical, but when the focus of the employer shifts from long-term business stability to short-term financial gains, unethical decision-making becomes more likely.

For employees, it means that their well-being is less valuable than the short-term perception of financial viability. Layoffs, wage freezes, and benefit reduction actions that used to destroy businesses because they were seen as signs highlighting financial weakness are now commonplace because employers' perception of short-term gains has become more important than long-term viability. Overall, managers are responsible for meeting key performance indicators and organizational objectives, sometimes at the expense of employee satisfaction (Greenhalgh, 2023).

This is not to say that all employers disregard ethics, but it highlights why employees must advocate for their own interests. A company may offer competitive wages and benefits not out of goodwill; rather, they are choosing to be passive in how they set their wages, and the labor market allows it. Likewise, ethical labor practices are often a response to legal requirements or public pressure rather than a voluntary commitment to ethics.

Why Employees Should Not Assume Ethical Leadership

When employees assume that their employer is a leader, they may overlook signs of unethical behavior or fail to push for better conditions. This can lead to several negative consequences, such as

Unethical treatment going unchallenged: Employees may hesitate to question company policies, assuming they are in place for their benefit when they primarily...