As Guilty As A Leader

By A. Abeku Haywood-Dadzie

Article six of the Human Rights Act 1988 establishes the presumption of innocence; that says, the guilt of an accused person cannot be presumed and that they must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The concept of presumption of innocence can be traced all the way back to the 13th century and has served as the bedrock for most fair trials. While the above concept applies to practically everyone and ensures that almost everyone is treated equally and fairly in almost all situations and endeavors, it may not literally be consistent with how leaders are treated within almost every socio-political and cultural milieu. When it comes to leadership, the concept of presumption of guilt, rather than innocence, applies; that is, a person [leader] is guilty of a crime unless and until they are proven innocent.

In the vast majority of circumstances, this is how most subordinates define fairness in their relationships with their superiors, and as a result, in the overwhelming majority of situations, leaders are presumed "guilty unless proven innocent," whereas followers presume themselves to be "innocent until proven guilty." But this is "no-new-news" in that the first rule of leadership is that every failure is the leader's fault. This answers the question why leaders presumed guilty until and unless they are proven innocent?

Being a leader is akin to being a high-ranking primate. Several anthropological studies on chimpanzees, gorillas, and monkeys indicate that the creatures far below the pecking order of their societies watch every move the high-ranking primates make. The high-ranking primates, on the other hand, rarely look at their followers. This means that the followers of most of these high-ranking primates probably know a lot more about their leaders than the leaders know about themselves. In baboon troops especially, a low-ranking member will glance at the high-ranking male (the alpha of the group) every thirty seconds for guidance, says Shivank.

According to a study conducted by Dr. MaryAnn Noonan, primate brains, including ours, can be specialised for life at either end of the hierarchy. The differences might reflect inherited tendencies toward leading or following, or the brain adapting to an animal's role in life—or a little of both. Humans, like primates, pay attention to those who influence our results. We're always trying and striving to predict and, hopefully, influence our futures, and paying attention to our leaders is an essential part of that plan. As a result, when supervisors lose control or get defensive when dealing with subordinates who deserve to be punished, the rest of the workforce takes notice.

The most important reason, however, is that, because leaders are usually in front, next to, or maybe slightly behind their followers, they are held accountable for the failures of their team or the group they lead. They are frequently caught in "friendly fire", misunderstood, misapprehended, unappreciated, and overlooked by both superiors and subordinates. Despite these obstacles, they must skillfully and delicately balance the demands of all their vertical and lateral stakeholders.

It is imperative to note that whenever people come together, they create a "power platform" since most socio-cultural groups have a pyramid-shaped structure, which leads to the creation of a political environment. As previously stated, leaders everywhere amass power in their capacity as resource owners or as agents acting on behalf of resource owners. The management of these resources places them in positions of power and generates a political environment for them to operate in.

Leaders are held to such high standards by their followers that they expect them to fix all of their problems. The majority of the time, these followers are unable to differentiate between the leader's decisions and their own obligations. They rarely accept personal responsibility for their actions, preferring instead to place blame on others. As such, anything that happens on a leader’s watch is the leader’s responsibility and must be judged as such. This level of responsibility just goes with the leadership, and leaders who cannot accept this do not deserve to lead.

Effective leaders understand this, as well as the notion that their actions affect a large number of individuals. Thousands of leaders who have failed in their own lives have affected and destroyed the lives of some of their followers indirectly by not meeting their expectations. Leaders must always keep their personal lives separate from their professional lives in order to achieve this goal. However, at some points in leadership, the leader's ability to separate the two becomes difficult; the two become intertwined and enmeshed. It's fine for a leader to create a clear line between the two, but these lines can become hazy and indistinct at times. The conclusion is that at certain levels of leadership, the leader must accept the fact that it is impossible to separate their professional lives from their personal lives.

Leadership, once again, is analogous to being the captain of a ship. A captain is said to be the last person to leave a ship alive before it sinks or is completely destroyed, and where the captain is unable to save the crew and passengers, the captain will not save himself or herself,?even if it’s possible.

The?ship's?master's?responsibility?for?their?vessel,?regardless?of?its?condition,?is?paramount,?so?abandoning?a?ship?has?legal?ramifications,?including?the?nature?of?salvage?rights.?As?a?result,?even?if?captains?quit?their?ship?in?difficulty,?they?are?normally?liable?for?it?while?they?are?gone?and?are?obligated?to?return?to?the?ship?until?the?danger?has?passed.?According to Wikipedia, if a?captain?evacuates?a?ship?during?a?conflict,?it?could?be?regarded as a major felony equivalent to desertion unless the captain returns to the ship as soon as possible to avoid its capture and rescue the crew?

Do you still want to know why leaders are presumed guilty unless and until proven innocent?

Leaders and employees frequently say things they would never say under normal circumstances when emotions are high and situations are tense. Although the obnoxious employees may eventually lose their jobs, the leader loses control of their team if they follow that route. Leaders must respond sensibly rather than allowing things to spiral out of control or acting foolishly, since after everything is said and done, they are guilty unless and until proven innocent.