Feelings of guilt may signal leadership potential (2012)
gsb.stanford.edu
gsb.stanford.edu
However, I believe there is a misconception with the shared definition of guilt in some cultures - one that followed me in the circles of SV I knew, playfully called "Catholic Guilt." I've come to learn what the true driver of 'the guilt' is, and it has helped me in my leadership in profound ways. The heart of the misconception from others is that the ultimate perfection of 'guilt' is martyrdom. In the SV circles I ran I exhibited such through the seeking of reducing oneself to elevate others. And so without the keel in knowing the origins of one's beliefs, one can easily adorn that alternative definition as truth, as I did.
-- Forewarning: this gets religious, but it is only to help those who have experienced the same things I have. There is no 'best religion' or teaching insulated below, for I, too, am still a fool. This is just one humble person's perspective --
To those who feel that an ultimate sacrifice is martyrdom, I would direct you to read the Passion from the Gospel of John. In the time of Christ's death, only one apostle remained with Christ at the foot of the cross - the apostle John. To those who know the story, John is the disciple to whom Jesus references to Mary when saying, 'woman behold your son.' What becomes interesting about John, in addition to the sole apostle in attendance at the crucifixion, is that he did not suffer martyrdom as all other apostles did.
So perhaps interpreting guilt as a symptom of not honoring the ultimate sacrifice, is the correct orientation. Meaning that Honor, if allowed to be defined as duty over self, is the desired 'behavior,' sought in this study and to be lived in all aspects of life as a 'Christian.' And to reduce one's guilt through the pursuit of Honor, rather than desensitization and liberation of 'the guilt,' is what one needs to plainly emphasize. In my experience, it sheds the air of 'Catholic Guilt' over those misunderstood actions in a fortifying way.
I think that's largely true, and not very controversial. Aspiring to martyrdom is largely self-indulgent and misguided. Plato had it right in the Republic, the leader is most likely found amongst those reluctant to lead and to the articles point is probably burdened with some level of guilt and feelings of responsibility to others.
So that's it: guilt means you feel responsible for something wrong, and that through you actions, you have to right that wrong.
You Christian story doesn't sound like guilt to me, unless you are talking about survivor guilt, which is a weird way to frame it since it is a condition we generally try to avoid (it is also called "survivor disorder"). I would rather frame it as "I am the last man standing, I have to take over what the others died for", which is a strong sense of duty but I wouldn't call it guilt because no crime is committed.
I don't think this is true. In reality it's more like "After you have served your sentence, you are an ex-convict and will face discrimination for the rest of your life. Also moving forward you will get examined extra close by law enforcement".
I believe that guilt is the result of leadership in the workplace because business leaders often have to make ethical decisions that almost entirely end up giving one person the short end of the stick.
The reason guilt is a good indicator means that the individual has a strong ethos towards favorable outcomes that benefit both company and individuals, which is often a one or the other situation, not both.
However I often challenge leaders and myself to not feel ‘guilty’, but rather to constantly seek the best outcome. Being uncomfortable for periods of time to make sure your decisions don’t impact peoples lives, income, families and health is reasonable. In fact I would argue it should be a requirement for management to also be leaders. Sadly most managers are not leaders and it’s widely known that the two are conflated.
I don’t know how people attempt to lead without some kind of ethical system. However maybe that explains the lack of leaders across industry and the abundance of subpar leadership.
I feel this is what's wrong with the evangelical church today, a member of which I used to be. Guilt is a wonderful way to understand the need for atonement and salvation. Today's evangelical movement is usually only about finding Jesus and then realizing how special you have become. This almost always leads to NO feelings of guilt and then leads to the trap of perfectionism. Wanting to make things right after we have erred is one of the true signs of Christianity. Staying humble by realizing perfectionism is unattainable is another.
Great work and thank you for sharing. You’ve provided us an example of thoughtful leadership right here.
Leadership is not some higher calling, nor is there anything particularly profound about learning to do it well.
Incredible statement. Ever once heard of a military?? Entire sovereign nations are founded by these sort of people for whom you clearly have no respect, but that probably tells us about how useful you are to other people.
One then wonders if Christopher Columbus had a higher calling with his plans on slavery, or if the leaders that enabled bringing so many african slaves to America should themselves be thought as having a higher calling.
Or is this just nationalism rearing it's ugly head?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32497194
I am in healthcare and never wanted to be in administration. For complicated reasons, I keep getting more leadership responsibilities even though I typically think of myself as conflict avoidant. I do pride myself as being a role model for helping people and “taking the extra step” to help people when it may be something others would delegate. I think in my case it more has to due with lack of competition and such but I definitely fit the bill for someone who feels guilt. I can see also how guilt that is felt with respect to the entire group can lead to decisions that are better for the group (but may cost an individual more).
> Although “guilt” and “shame” may seem quite similar to most people... Whereas someone who feels guilty feels bad about a specific mistake and wants to make amends, a person who’s ashamed of a mistake feels bad about himself or herself and shrinks away from the error.
Both of these make so much sense to me that I'm surprised I didn't think of them before. People tell you not to take care of other people ("mind your business") but it seems that an appropriate amount of that is a great strength.
Guilt can therefore be considered necessary for self-improvement, whereas shame just doesn't do anybody any good.
edit: It was a talk by Brené Brown, not sure which one
Actually it's sometimes a helpful feeling -- or evolution would have made it disappear.
But yes, many people feel shame too often? In a non constructive way,
At the same time, consider this: You're trying something new, maybe singing karaoke for the first time. It doesn't go well, you sing the wrong tones, the wrong lyrics, and the others start looking at you with surprise and a bit disappoinment in their eyes.
Should you continue singing more and more songs like that, they'll start to think that you're clueless about the impression you're making on others. They can start thinking you have some minor mental problems (if you sing bad enough and go on and on happily).
But instead you feel ... Shame, and withdraw: that day you don't sing more karaoke songs. Back home, you practice in the shower, and two weeks later you try again an now it goes ok.
Also on a long enough timeline what was a good choice at the time can later take on negative association due to circumstances, and occasionally there’s no right answer in the first place. Just takes making a decision other than to stay put.
I feel like this "guilt / shame" distinction is not driven by people who understand psychology very well, or who don't really care about communicating clearly. IIRC it was originally used to describe different cultures and now it's trying to be used to describe "good" guilt/shame and "bad" guilt/shame as two completely different things.
Scientists often avoid using 'normal' words to describe things, because 'normal' people get confused and start pointless arguments over it. As an example of something that causes constant confusion, 'bugs' are insects with sucking mouthparts (I am not a biologist, there's a bit more to it) and anyone who calls a beetle a bug is using unscientific terminology. It just causes a lot of confusion. Technical definitions shouldn't try to hijack ambiguous terms that are in common use unless you just want to sound clever in internet discussions when talking about what words 'really mean', or you want to appropriate existing connotations over the word (e.g. you want to make your definitions a lot more important than they are).
If the people trying to differentiate "guilt" and "shame" understand human nature so well, why would they use terms that are simply going to cause confusion?
I suspect there's a broad range of things that we'd describe as "guilt" or "shame" (and depending on the person it would vary), and these might be good or bad depending on the context. I also think that if we want to use "grown up" definitions that people will understand unambiguously (e.g. anxiety over peer judgement?) then it would pay to just use these, rather than making every discussion over "guilt" and "shame" simply be discussion over what those words "really mean".
In reality I suspect it's quite hard to have high levels of guilt and be a leader. At least recognising one's mistakes and taking responsibility for them is something that doesn't tend to be rewarded in the corporate world. It's probably better to have low guilt and be better at reframing mistakes as small set backs. To not do this risks looking incapable.
But anyway, good social skills and extraversion seems to be by far the most important traits for leadership positions. You also need to have a elevated self-confidence in your own opinions, at least this is true within a lot of corporate environments.
But I guess I never really understood the leadership thing. I think it would be better to replace the whole concept of "leaders" and replace them with "orchestrators" of teams. Good "leadership" decisions in my opinion are really about good delegation and organisation of a team's resources, you shouldn't really be taking "lead" in any actual decision making, you should just "lead" the orchestration. Decision making should be done by the most equipped individuals of a team. Leadership goes wrong when a leader makes too many decisions, it doesn't really matter if they feel guilty for making a bad decision if they shouldn't have made them in the first place.
You're not talking about leadership, you're talking about "decision-making high-ranking (?) managers in the business world".
A good leader is someone who you want to follow, because you trust that they will do their best in guiding you (the team) towards your goal.
Wouldn't you rather follow someone who would feel bad/guilty for letting the team down?
I don't think I understanding the difference. Are "high-ranking managers" not classed as "leaders"? Could you give me an example of a leader as you understand it?
> A good leader is someone who you want to follow, because you trust that they will do their best in guiding you (the team) towards your goal.
I guess I don't want to follow anyone? I just want be able to have input where I am able to offer value.
Similarly when I'm in leadership positions, I don't want to dictate, I want to understand how we as a team can make the best decisions. Sometimes I might be the best person to make a decision, but that's rare, and even then I still want to confirm my decisions with my team to ensure everyone approves and understands the decisions being made. I think seeking approval is both an important step to getting the team onboard and receiving any needed feedback. Any "leader" who didn't do this would be a bad leader in my opinion. This is often where I see things go wrong at companies, if I as an expert in some field object to what I or someone else is being told to do and I'm overridden without a very good explanation that gives me red flags.
I'm INTP though and we tend to struggle with hierarchies. I find it hard to believe that people are best utilised as unopinionated "followers" of all-knowing leaders, but I suppose I would think that given my personality.
> Wouldn't you rather follow someone who would feel bad/guilty for letting the team down?
Well yeah, but I'd also feel annoyed that this person let the team down if the decision could have been made better as a team. If a single person is accepting guilt for an entire team then something is probably wrong. Ideally I'd want the team to be feeling guilty, because I'd argue it's the team as a whole that should have been responsible. I know as a team member I always take fall responsibility for mistakes made and would never delegate my guilt to my manager. I could have always have done more. We all can.
You can be a leader without being a manager, and you can be a manager without being a leader.
> Ideally I'd want the team to be feeling guilty, because I'd argue it's the team as a whole that should have been responsible.
I don't agree at all, and this is probably where we think differently about leadership, and why you don't like the article's conclusions.
When the team fails, it's the leader's fault. When the team succeeds, the leader lets the team have the praise and the glory.
Listen to Jocko Willink's talks about extreme ownership on Youtube. He talks about this.
I have a friend who breathes heavily when he eats. I fucking hate it. But he's been my friend since I was 16 (I'm now over 40).
Is my friend exhibiting a power play, am I being subservient, or is it just two humans getting along with each other?
Not everything is power politics.
https://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/babiak2010.pdf
https://hbr.org/2015/09/empathy-is-still-lacking-in-the-lead...
https://hbr.org/2015/04/becoming-powerful-makes-you-less-emp...
This has been going on for at least some time, and likely confers at least some evolutionary advantage.
Virtuosity tends to extend less than self-interest, which seems to be approximately boundless.
Having said that, I guess ones perspective on that particular duality is Hugo influenced by ones mood in any given moment ;)
In fact, true psychopaths never seem to occupy more than 1% of the population. They are the self-interest pros because they do not feel fear or stress the same way we do and can make the most of it. But at the same time they find themselves limited by society even if a few of them succeed enormously.
All this to say, I'm not sure virtue is that limited. These are competing forces that have reached an equilibrium but most of the fabric of our lives IS virtuous.
Whilst smaller countries are more often somewhat well functioning democracies.
The more layers of power one has to climb to get to the top, the more beneficial it is to "be able to" happily manipulate, step on and destroy others
It's easier to instil in someone the feeling of "you're depressed because you have been abused as a child, and if you don't remember the abuse itself it doesn't mean it isn't there, otherwise you wouldn't have been depressed", than to solve real societal issues that are more likely causes for said depression, as I've heard almost no-one say "we'll cure mass depression by making housing more affordable or by providing free child-care".
We don't have time for that, we need to hunt down potential abusers and yell "shame on you" at them in public, and get other people to yell "shame on you" at them. If we broke up the banks tomorrow, would that end racism?
The deed is done. You can't un-pregnant that woman, nor can you un-abuse that child.
Declaring that the abuse shouldn't have happened in the first place does fuck-all for the child who has been abused.
Do you think if Bill Gates Got laid in high school Do you think there? d be a Microsoft? Of course not
You got to spend a long time Stuffed in your own locker With your underwear Wedged up your ass before you start thinkin' ? I? m going to take of the world With computers! You'll see, I? ll show them?
-underwear goes inside the pants by lazyboy
Someone without moral clarity about their direction can manage, judge, be an authority figure, drive change, govern, influence, and lots of other means of using power invested in them, but they are using the reflected clarity of the authority that invested them with their powers, and they are not the origin of that moral clarity like someone with first hand knowledge, competence, or physical experience. This natural leadership doesn't always prevail either, and it's even not always ethical, but if you want to talk about leadership, it's not something that can be faked until you make it or affected for very long, as it's the effect of being followed willingly. You are followed, or you aren't.