Leaders are expected to do the right thing-always. As e Cunha et al. (2021) point out, leadership is being presented as a morality tale which describes leaders as efficient, caring, compassionate, authentic, trustworthy, protective of the natural environment, promoters of diversity, and so forth-they are, in essence, supposed to be flawless human beings. Unfortunately, reality does not quite live up to these lofty expectations-and how can it? Others go the opposite way and suggest that good leadership means knowing about morality, but ignoring it in favour of achieving whatever goals are set for them-leadership should be amoral (Badaracco Jr, 2001;House & Aditya, 1997). It is thus no wonder that today business scandals are as common as they always were and that by now mediocracy, not excellence, almost seems desirable.Even though, on the surface, it might appear counterintuitive, we argue that looking at ancient ideas on the topic, might offer useful insights. We believe, Aristotle has provided managers with a practical and timeless theoretical basis for managing and leading effectively and ethically. Why is that? First, in the social sciences in general, but in the business-related disciplines in particular, Enlightenment ideas have made consequentialist cleverness an ideal. Cunning, the opposite of wisdom (Sison & Hühn, 2018, p. 167), leads to one-day wonders with exceptional profits and exploding share prices of the Enron and Theranos type. Seldom has it led to sustainable financial, and never to environmental and human flourishing. Aristotle's