So, I definitely got that part of the Inquisition wrong. The persecution and technically-not-forced-but-basically-forced conversions (conversos) happened about a century (1391) before the actual "Spanish Inquisition" kicked off (1483). The latter, with the papal bull by Sixtus IV granting the Castilian Crown permission, enacted a state-sponsored Inquisition. Before this it wasn't (to my knowledge) a part of state law, but more of an explosion of moralistic/religious mob frenzy. So the "real Spanish Inquisition" seems to have happened long after Jews were forced to convert. In any case, it was a poor argument on my part.

I agree with you that the leadership does set the culture and tone for the company. But I also believe that forcing leaders to transmute their personal lives into the moral symbol of an amorphous corporate entity is somewhat inhumane. Do we have to only have leaders who lead pious, uncontroversial personal lives? Isn't there a balance to strike between this person's personal and work life?

Famously, Steve Jobs was an asshole. Jeff Bezos is another asshole. There's undoubtedly been other asshole leaders of companies. As leaders, they set their company's cultures. But where is the moral outrage asking them to step down from causing harm to their employees? You read about them in many books and blogs - terrified employees, managers making bad decisions out of fear, difficult work/life balance. And yet, if you look at the actual moral outrage from the tech world, this is business as usual. But it's harmful! On the scales of moral justice, it would seem terrorizing your workforce can be okay, depending on the form it takes.

This is another stupid, poor comparison on my part, but I'm trying (in vain probably) to get at this: what is considered "beyond the pale" of harm probably is not based on some kind of measurable outcome, but rather what gets people more angry - specifically the anger rooted in moral exclusion. In addition I'm saying that it's possible that keeping people around, regardless of their questionable personal ethics, might not be a cultural catastrophe.

I've worked with many people over the years, some of them in positions of leadership with controversial views. But the company culture encouraged open and honest communication, and its strength helped people have the occasional difficult conversation in an open way without it becoming a toxic working environment. That's certainly not always possible. But it was proof enough to me that by sticking by these people, we could eventually explain and help open up the thoughts of someone who would go on to lead others.

Another argument could be made that even following someone who's making one's life worse may have, in the grand scheme, a greater-good impact. One example might be Mozilla fighting for Internet... whatever it fights for, and another might be the power of the supply chain to provide cheaper goods (Amazon, Wal-Mart) or an alternative platform for creative work (Apple). So there may be reasons (excuses?) for following a leader who is making your life hell. You'd have to ask those employees why they do it. I do it because one coal mine is as good as the next. I suppose if you want to keep the most coal miners doing the most work you need a mine boss that inspires them, so a mine boss that nobody likes and doesn't inspire great work is probably worth chucking. But if the workers can put the boss out of their mind and still get their work done, who really cares about the mine boss? At what point can/should we stop focusing on individual morality and instead focus on practicality? Maybe that's a dangerous direction in itself.