‘Yes, I think there is an implicit or “psychological” contract underlying all leadership. Expressed in its simplest form it reads something like this:
If you lead, we will come with you.
or
If you will accompany me, I will lead the way.
‘As I say, this implicit understanding is seldom put into words; it is sensed and accepted by both parties. It usually develops over a period of time – it grows – and it invariably reflects a degree of mutual respect and even a deeper mutual feeling which may be called love,’ I added.
‘Soldiers who experience such respect and affection for their leader, for example, may prefer to die themselves rather than desert him in battle. For his part, the leader will sometimes lay down his life for his men. Anyway, by leading soldiers into battle from in front the leader is placing himself at greater risk than his men.’
‘You are talking about loyalty, aren’t you?’ enquired the young chief executive. ‘Such a leader creates loyalty so that people – in industry or on the battlefield – are loyal to him and would follow him anywhere. Surely this is the essence of good leadership?’
‘Loyalty – personal loyalty of the kind you mention – is a double- edged sword. In other words, there is a downside as well as an upside. So perhaps we should pause for a moment to dissect the concept. Originally loyalty meant to be faithful in allegiance to one’s lawful government. Later this meaning was extended to faithfulness to a private person, such as a leader – one to whom fidelity is held to be due. In that sense it would be possible, I suppose, to express the leadership “contract” I outlined as a kind of two-way or reciprocal loyalty.’
‘You definitely don’t sound too keen on the word loyalty,’ said the young chief executive, with a smile.
‘My difficulty partly lies with the notion of being a follower of a particular leader. Apart from the fact that being a follower sounds rather passive – like sheep following a shepherd – my objection is that it emphasizes too much devotion or loyalty to the person of the leader rather than the cause at stake. It gets really pernicious when the leader invites or persuades his “followers” to follow him in some path that is inimical to the cause. Hitler, you recall, made the German Army swear an oath of loyalty to him personally as Führer (Leader), and he expected them to obey his orders without question. Of course he could claim to be the “lawful government”, but to personalize government in this way – to equate leader and cause, in this case, the good of Germany – proved to have tragic consequences.
‘Please don’t misunderstand me,’ I continued, ‘for I am not saying that it is wrong for a personal bond to develop between a leader and those who accompany him or her on the journey. As I have said, initial ignorance or even fear may turn into mutual respect and trust. That in turn is the breeding ground of mutual affection and may even develop into a love that is willing to make considerable sacrifices. That’s the way we are. Yet both wise leadership (and wise “followership”) rests on the principle that an implicit “contract” is not an unlimited liability on both sides. There are conditions, which may be implicit at first but frequently need to be made explicit as circumstances reveal them.’