Conservatism and Leadership

There are many aspects of leadership which embody the idea of conservatism. It is believed that at the heart of conservatism is self accountability. At the heart of leadership is accountability in not only your leadership but in the actions of those whom you lead. That implies that leaders are responsible and accountable for the actions of those they lead either through direct interaction or through delegation. It is a constant debate whether or not this is completely fair, but if it was then that would mean that life was fair and burdens were fairly distributed to each individual. On the same logic fairness implies equal qualities without advantages over anyone at any task. For people to have everything be fair, means there are no advantages or disadvantages in life. This philosophy is good for the disadvantaged, because the disadvantaged move up in life, but bad for the advantaged, since they move down. Ironically if this ideal were to come to fruition people would find out where they really were on the advantaged/disadvantaged scale. I think people would be shocked to realize were they really are.

The latter is the dream of liberalism, that no man (not gender specific) should have a burden. This philosophy is also flawed, where would burden go? As far as people are concerned, they aren't concerned as long as burden shifts away from them. (great spot for a moral plug but this is a blog not a book) People sell this dream as a clean slate that never fills except equally across the slates of others. Society will share the problems of society equally. So, is this even an achievable dream? The answer is no. The sad part is this dream is rooted in one of two places, one in people believing/willing to give all for the benefit of others and two those who believe in entitlement.

To tie this back to leadership; leadership today implies that the authority to carry out tasks can be delegated but the accountability to accomplish the assigned task lies solely on the shoulders of the leader, usually the leader that was furthest down on the delegation. To me this idea has a huge flaw. This idea of leadership in a non-trickle down of accountability leaves the majority without any ramifications for their actions. The only ramification is when the leadership fails and those below are not supported by the established leadership and are left one their own, which they are not accustomed to. Todays leadership theory, like todays society, tries to appease all aspects of society. It merges the liberal view of no ones fault and spreading of burdens regardless of capability with that of the conservative accountability. So regardless of the abilities that people possess, all should be able to accomplish the same tasks within an organization and if they can't then that task failed due to leadership vice poorly trained or inept employees/Sailors. In the end the two cannot sustain each other. The leadership gets bogged down with the ramifications of decisions and the lower go idle. Leadership has no motivation to reach beyond the status quo because to do so is a constant risk and potential career ender. Being idle though is not in the vocabulary of a true leader, which leaves their, be it their own or their heirs, downfall as inevitable. Once a leader fails there is no other job to which they can apply their talents in life. The workers on the other hand can move from job to job without endangering their livelihood. They have been taught to accept a ceiling to what they can accomplish and to just look for a leader to give direction. That position is sustainable, low risk but low reward. Yet this is the class of worker that demands more for less.

This is where the human history of classes come from. The higher classes have always been the high risk high reward. Call them Aristocrats, CEO's, Royalty or Managers. Society always dictates and rewards those who step into that challenge and forever punishes them when they fail. The solution is to enforce accountability all the way down. Every person should be held accountable for their own performance. If people became accountable on all levels then that would breed a productive workforce all striving to accomplish more and more for job security and for reward.

It is my belief that this hybrid style of leadership that is active today is a self defeating doctrine. The only two possible outcomes from this doctrine is the establishment of a permanent upper class or the failure of a nation. Until we reach a point when our society can bluntly state, "You are responsible for your own success or failure regardless of personal situations." , then we will be plagued by politically correctness. I'll post later on thoughts on Unions and how they cannot carry our nation or workforce forward, but hold it back to old ideology.