Dear Friends,
It seems to me, alienating one’s allies while empowering one’s enemies is a sub-optimal strategy for success. The Wormtongues of the world have an uncanny ability to get into the ear. Their verbal poison is as seductive as it is deadly. Even as those who would keep one on the correct path are vilified, marginalized, and finally tossed aside. In the life of Dion, after a great struggle and meting out great mercy… he entrusted the wrong people. Those wrong people opened the door for Dionysius, who meted out unmerciful horror. The Romans thought they had a fast friend in Attila the Hun. He was, after all, raised as a Roman. Their trust was shattered when he showed up at the gates of Rome with a Hun army. History, pragmatism, and good old common sense all agree that trusting the wrong people is disastrous.
There are general rules for life. If one seeks to play a game over and over again, he or she must behave in ways that allow the game to be played over and over. Certain rules must be followed to stay among the elite. In both paradigms, however, those rules go out the window when one party only wants to play once… and win. In this case, trust becomes a liability. Since the game is only being played once… the player who knows this doesn’t need to follow rules that allow more games, because it’s a one game paradigm. Such people epitomize Tolkien’s Wormtongue. They have no scruples, don’t limit their actions, and are focused on one thing. The rules most of us take for granted when interacting with others then don’t apply. Pragmatically then, this changes the game.
Pragmatism is the philosophy of doing what works. The pragmatist looks at the past and judges what has worked and what has failed. Then he or she applies what has worked. In the past giving power to a friend has often resulted in victory. Alexander and his generals for example. The pragmatist also avoids doing what has failed in the past. Dion’s forgiving of his enemies and giving them power proved disastrous. A crime against humanity not only for him but for the whole city of Syracuse. So… that’s probably something that should be avoided. An idealist, on the other hand, believes that just because something hasn’t worked that doesn’t mean it won’t work. That kind of person might hand the keys to the kingdom to a known traitor to garner loyalty, while alienating his friends.
Loyalty is hard to get and easy to lose. Moreover, loyalty must be reciprocated. There was a time in America when men who worked for a company had loyalty for that company. They believed in the products their company produced because they produced them. There was during the 1940’s-1950’s a belief that companies had loyalty for the worker. During the 1970s when corporations began offshoring jobs, those same workers felt stabbed in the back. Years of loyalty had been returned with a layoff notice just before retiring. Corporations reaped what they sowed. The result is that today no one is loyal to the firm they work for. Just as businesses are seldom loyal to their employees. This has created a huge inefficiency in the system. It all started by the disloyalty of the employers.
An executive would be wise then to empower only those who can be trusted, keep out of power those who cannot be trusted, and reciprocate the loyalty he or she expects. Maybe in an idealist paradise the disloyal can be rewarded without harm, but in the world of causes and effects, such actions are tantamount to self destruction. Moreover, as loyal allies fall away and disloyal enemies gain power, that leader becomes increasingly subject to the Wormtongues. People who are a Trojan Horse. This paradigm is at work even in games where the participants seek to play multiple iterations… but in a game where one or more seek total victory, rules don’t apply. The leader who alienates friends, rewards enemies, and returns loyalty with a slap in the face… is doomed by his own hand.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
Reciprocating Loyalty
Dear Friends,
It seems to me, alienating one’s allies while empowering one’s enemies is a sub-optimal strategy for success. The Wormtongues of the world have an uncanny ability to get into the ear. Their verbal poison is as seductive as it is deadly. Even as those who would keep one on the correct path are vilified, marginalized, and finally tossed aside. In the life of Dion, after a great struggle and meting out great mercy… he entrusted the wrong people. Those wrong people opened the door for Dionysius, who meted out unmerciful horror. The Romans thought they had a fast friend in Attila the Hun. He was, after all, raised as a Roman. Their trust was shattered when he showed up at the gates of Rome with a Hun army. History, pragmatism, and good old common sense all agree that trusting the wrong people is disastrous.
There are general rules for life. If one seeks to play a game over and over again, he or she must behave in ways that allow the game to be played over and over. Certain rules must be followed to stay among the elite. In both paradigms, however, those rules go out the window when one party only wants to play once… and win. In this case, trust becomes a liability. Since the game is only being played once… the player who knows this doesn’t need to follow rules that allow more games, because it’s a one game paradigm. Such people epitomize Tolkien’s Wormtongue. They have no scruples, don’t limit their actions, and are focused on one thing. The rules most of us take for granted when interacting with others then don’t apply. Pragmatically then, this changes the game.
Pragmatism is the philosophy of doing what works. The pragmatist looks at the past and judges what has worked and what has failed. Then he or she applies what has worked. In the past giving power to a friend has often resulted in victory. Alexander and his generals for example. The pragmatist also avoids doing what has failed in the past. Dion’s forgiving of his enemies and giving them power proved disastrous. A crime against humanity not only for him but for the whole city of Syracuse. So… that’s probably something that should be avoided. An idealist, on the other hand, believes that just because something hasn’t worked that doesn’t mean it won’t work. That kind of person might hand the keys to the kingdom to a known traitor to garner loyalty, while alienating his friends.
Loyalty is hard to get and easy to lose. Moreover, loyalty must be reciprocated. There was a time in America when men who worked for a company had loyalty for that company. They believed in the products their company produced because they produced them. There was during the 1940’s-1950’s a belief that companies had loyalty for the worker. During the 1970s when corporations began offshoring jobs, those same workers felt stabbed in the back. Years of loyalty had been returned with a layoff notice just before retiring. Corporations reaped what they sowed. The result is that today no one is loyal to the firm they work for. Just as businesses are seldom loyal to their employees. This has created a huge inefficiency in the system. It all started by the disloyalty of the employers.
An executive would be wise then to empower only those who can be trusted, keep out of power those who cannot be trusted, and reciprocate the loyalty he or she expects. Maybe in an idealist paradise the disloyal can be rewarded without harm, but in the world of causes and effects, such actions are tantamount to self destruction. Moreover, as loyal allies fall away and disloyal enemies gain power, that leader becomes increasingly subject to the Wormtongues. People who are a Trojan Horse. This paradigm is at work even in games where the participants seek to play multiple iterations… but in a game where one or more seek total victory, rules don’t apply. The leader who alienates friends, rewards enemies, and returns loyalty with a slap in the face… is doomed by his own hand.
Sincerely,
John Pepin