Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Leadership....

Or what the Army likes to call LDRSHP... In Ancient times Aristotle (and Plato) laid out several things in which he thought made a person a good citizen or even a productive member of society in "The Politics". He discussed much about how morals and values along with ethics are impacted by example or what is learned. He noted items that are and were important in being someone who has empathy and is empathetic.

This is different than sympathy (pathos meaning emotional ): with emotion, compassion: compati or suffering with, or apathy: without emotion. Rather is means to cause to have or understand emotion... I think people misconstrue them. However, I don't believe that you can have compassion without empathy or vice versa which is why I bring up Plato.

I have heard since 1997 different interpretations of citizenship, being a leader, and having values. I have found though that most people can quote, believe they have, align themselves with, and even join causes to promote leadership, pathos, and whatever on a whim or what they decide to do, but few people live or even really know the true meaning of any of it.

Often we hear people saying they are empathetic or compassionate while wrecking havoc on others. Let's face it, at one time the Crusades were justified. And people thought they were going to bring religion to the heathens. At the expense of killing people in the name of religion. As time has gone by, we have forgotten what pathos means and this has even translated into leadership.

Loyalty. Plato talks about loyalty to the Republic. Even as citizens we find that loyalty is given when there is trust, but many time loyalties are placed on people who have no intention of bearing any allegiance to another. Meaning they are out for themselves, especially when of gas to do with duty, honor, integrity, and personal courage. Loyalty is a trait not found in cowards or traitors. The true test of loyalty is whether or not someone can face adversity and remain true.

Duty also is tied in to pathos and also loyalty. This means being driven to act even if it means you have something to lose. Once again people's selfish nature, disloyalty, and lack of courage get in the way of fulfilling one's duty. This in essence means when faced with honor or integrity, people will do anything to CYA or cover their butts in an effort to prevent others from seeing their faults. Often thus is seen in dishonesty and also directing others to be dishonest. Eventually the truth comes out and it usually isn't due to conscience but rather being caught.

Respect. Respect also takes pathos into account. In respecting others, we respect ourselves. Quite bluntly, if someone lacks respect for others, they will probably disrespect you, hold no loyalty, and only care about duty when there is something in it for them. Once again, the human nature aspect that Greek philosophers talk about. I also know that being selfless has a huge hand in this.

Selflessness is putting others before you. Those who are selfless,may often be hurt because those who are selfish, have no loyalty, no sense of or misplaced duty, and respect is only there if they think they might get something out of it. Perhaps the main reason why few are selfless has to do with personal or financial gain. When those areas are impacted or purposefully adjusted, the selfish often blame others. Say in the case of a fine: bad behavior = a negative outcome. But instead of taking responsibility, it was the clerk at the liquor store who cause the drunk driver to get a DUI and so on and so forth. Taking responsibility for ones actions, even in the face of adversity shows something that few truly know with respect to honor and integrity.

Honor and integrity go hand in hand. Once again pathos comes into play. Honor shows respect. If not for anyone else but for oneself. Sometimes doing the honorable thing is not necessarily the most popular thing. Honor allows for one to show the other values mentioned in respect to ones values and beliefs and is manifested in actions. Lying or giving a false appearance is in no way honorable. Appearances or rather false appearances. We could talk about this all day, but a code of honor, far surpasses even false bravery or courage.

Integrity.... The word itself has to do with honesty in regards to ethics. Even a bad situation which has caused morals or ethics to be compromised, can be turned around when someone decides to have integrity. Meaning even when the truth is staring you in the face at great personal risk, one has a duty or an obligation to be honest and truthful. Usually though, human nature takes over and people lie or encourage others to lie. Integrity quite simply is truth!

Lastly, personal courage. You can choose the easy wrong or the hard right. Meaning even at the expense of your own reputation you sometimes have to bite the bullet. This can come at a great price because those who do not hold these values or understand them fully, will do whatever it takes to discredit you. Even to the point of accusing you or anyone else who stands in their way of being whatever they feel will gather the most sympathy or take the pressure or spotlight off of them.

Can pathos exist when these are traits are missing? From a personal and leadership standpoint, I can't see how since all are inextricably tied together. If pathos truly exists then the latter traits or a desire to develop the traits are not hidden. The true test of maturity is found in whether or not a leader can face adversity, fail, or even be mocked without acting in a way that shows that he or she is without pathos or even sinking to the level of the aggressor. Often times it can be described as, "taking one for the team"... But yet, this has to be see as a consistent pattern not just during war, but in peace.

That is also what separates bravery from cowardice. When everyone else is trying to save their own skin, who do you want leading you or in your corner, the one with or without pathos ? How about risking their own reputation to do the right thing. I know who my allegiance would be with. Do you?

No comments: