Leadership

Leadership is responsibility for the development of those that you lead. To lead another, or a group of persons, is to influence their psychological state in a way that helps the group realize their agreed upon objective. When we follow someone, or look to another to lead a situation, we are lending to them a piece of our self-governance in the hopes that they will guide us to our desired state. We defer our behavior to them in order that we realize this desired future state, outcome, or goal. Consequently, we have now given the leader some degree of authority, control, and direction over our own psychological process and development. The leader is now responsible not only for his own development but those of which he leads. Therefore, we can conclude that the leading-follow process is a matter above that of the physical or material terms of an arrangement. And it begs the question as to how we should lead another, and their changing psychological state, to ensure this degree of responsibility within ourselves.

We lead in the world by attempting to bring others onto our “page” psychologically. This is a sharing of perspective, cognition, and broader psychological process, in the aim of establishing agreement for a suggested path forward. We do this in conversation with each other as we search for points of relation to progress the relationship. We are engaged in this process when we consume or produce economically. When we consume, we are choosing a product or service to fit some desired state of being. In this scenario, the company is attempting to lead our psychological state, through their marketing efforts, to meet that desired state within us. And when we produce economically, the opposite is true. We market ourselves as the meeting of some desired state of being in the consumer; and attempt to lead their psychological process to meet that need by purchasing our goods or services. Marketing is an attempt to lead a person’s psychological process towards actioned behavior for the realization of some futured state of being, having purchased the goods or services for use. This dynamic of life is irrevocable and occurs at all levels of relation. Whether at times in part or in whole, the leading follow dynamic occurs so we can realize some ends of our self through the partnership of others. While this is largely known and understood, what is less understood is the process by which we undergo following the lead of another.

When we follow the lead of another we are lending to them a piece of our self-governance. This is in the hope that, through their leadership, we will arrive at some mutually agreed upon accomplishment or realization. We know this because trust is involved. We trust that the proposal is above all safe for us to pursue and then effective as a means for our realization. If we did not trust then we would not abide because it means we have concerns relating to our wellbeing and / or safety. This, of course, assumes an innate desire for survival above all else. This is a major bestowment from one person to another; because ultimately, trust is a vulnerability. In the process of ascribing trust you set conditions most apt for the alteration of your development by external force.

Trust creates psychological conditions of openness, receptivity to the inputs of another, and a natural desire for greater points of relation. Predominant in our reasoning now is belief and other emotional feedback processes' that obstruct or inhibit our executive control. Belief is first an adoption of the psychological process put forth, and later, a merging as a means of contribution to the cause. During this inner working our lens through which we view all proposed action becomes tilted towards better alignment with the mission and people involved. We have accepted the proposal, developed trust, and now deferred and / or aligned our behavior to those leading the advancement. Largely unconscious is the follower to this process within. The follower has now begun to undergo an alteration in their development at the acceptance of the direction put forth by another. Consequently, he or she has granted that person some degree of authority and control over themselves. For this reason, the responsibility of leading is much greater than the material or physical terms of an arrangement. The responsibility is moral.

Whether leading a family unit or a business unit, you are responsible for the development taking place in those that have ascribed trust to you. If you help another realize a shared objective by corrupt or unethical means, then you have destroyed, or at least altered, some part of them in the process. If you lead another to develop in ways that are poor in health, spirit, ability, etc., you are leading their destruction, not their betterment. The question for all of us as followers, at some level, is not “what are we getting here,” but rather, “what are we becoming here.” Leaders have the difficult job of maintaining this greater responsibility. Which begs the question, how do we uphold such great responsibility as a leader?

We can try to balance all aspects of self in our leadership of another but as the world becomes more complex, this becomes increasingly difficult to understand or maintain. The reason being that rationalization is used to manage the complexity; and eventually, this erodes at our idea of objective good or that which is true. Take the example of not prosecuting crime in major American cities as a measure of “equity” or some nonsensical compassion. This is a falsity. There is nothing compassionate or equitable about letting one group of people harm another group of people, the innocent. It is false on three principles: One, it is not compassionate to let a person continue to destroy himself by becoming more destructive and wicked in their ways (the perpetrator), Two, it is not compassionate, or equitable, to let innocent people suffer at the destructive ways of another when it could be avoided pre-emptively, and Three, it is not equitable to let current victims suffer without remedy for harmful acts against them. This is a blatant inversion of truth and subsequently, an inversion of objective good. Sustaining good intention, we can deduce that the argument developed (policy sold to the public) was unsound. While it may have seemed to have true premise once the idea developed on itself, the underlying principles to which the idea rested upon were of course false. Improper formulation of argument, good intention or not, the result to the public was of course the same. People at all levels of society suffered. Therefore, as leaders, it is best we keep our direction towards truth above all else.

The ultimate Truth is that of God. Truth does not change, will not change, and can be measured against other accounts of truth across time. In secular terms, the study of mathematics and sciences are areas that, above all, are aimed at discovering truth. Each discovery in these areas either confirms or disconfirms previous understandings, and over time, truth emerges itself. This principle of truth applies equally to other areas of life; and we can use it more practically, from a philosophical perspective, in our pursuit of profit.

When we honor truth in our pursuit, we orient ourselves in the direction of the highest Truth. This is due to the reciprocity that one account of truth has with another. The nature of truth is correct, just, and continuous in that it builds upon itself in constructive ways. We ensure the objective good of those that we lead when we orient our direction as such. To honor and uphold truth as a leader means to do so above the accomplishment of an objective. It means to follow truth as it unfolds or shows itself in the pursuit. When we do this, we operate in a way that has integrity. Integrity ensures we are just in our developments. We ensure we are in proper relation to that which is above us (Truth), thwarting exaggerated levels of self-importance and grandiosity. This proper relation protects us, and our followers, from the evils that tend to develop in the exaggerated state of being. In leading a business unit, it means creating and adhering to a meritocracy rather than the preferential treatment for unjust distinction. It means to defend your people pursuant to these principles from greater powers [of the company] that may not have such a proclivity towards truth or integrity. And it ultimately means to take the fall if the company would prefer your unit operated incongruently as to achieve some measure of success. This is the character of a real leader – somebody that is oriented towards Truth, principled in his manner of operation, and willing to stake himself as to not lead others astray in their development of self.