The Lincoln Leadership Dilemma; Or, The Primary Objective
Gregg Zegarelli Esq.
Managing Shareholder at Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC
I have a confession to make.
I think leadership and morality are distinct issues. They will do a dance together, but they sit down in different chairs.
Oh, you thought... No, no, no, that was not my confession. That was just me preparing you to hear my confession. Here is my confession:
I was graciously invited by a close friend to hear the famous leadership guru, John Maxwell, speak about leadership. During Maxwell's superb talk, I could not help thinking, "Is Maxwell teaching how to be a leader, or is he teaching how to be a priest who is a leader?" A subtle but important distinction. Maxwell kept framing his leadership examples in purported Christian virtues, and I kept thinking, "I'm trying to understand principles of leadership theory, which are amoral. I'm not in church."
I told you already, this is a confession.
I did not know at the time that Maxwell was a Christian pastor. However, the occasion itself was the cause for me to research Maxwell's background and there it was, voilà. My perception of Maxwell's Christian bias as applied to his leadership teaching was indeed clearly grounded in fact. He is not teaching only how leadership works, but also he is teaching how to use it. There is a difference.
Telling you this fact is not a condemnation Maxwell in any regard. Many of us have learned much from Maxwell and have deep admiration for him. In fact, many of us might not only appreciate him teaching us about the tool, but also teaching what we should make with the tool. But they are different issues.
Moreover, I am not even saying Maxwell's Christian morality conjoined to leadership study is the wrong leadership morality, but only that it is necessary that we observe and critically think about that conjoinment of principles as a matter of leadership pedagogy. I will make it more relevant in a moment.
As a seasoned Christian pastor, it is natural for Maxwell to teach leadership from the perspective of a Christian pastor. As a seasoned attorney, it is natural for me to teach leadership from the perspective of an attorney. Attorneys are trained to expose bias [1, 2] and there are few human conditions with more tightly-held bias than religion. Attorneys are trained to expose bias indoctrination that flies under the radar as a logical hidden premise weaved into another subject. [3, 4]
In my own travails of teaching masters of leadership, the students naturally tend to enter the class with all sorts of hidden premise biases. Most Americans are Christians [5], so it is natural that students of leadership are naturally biased in leadership principles grounded in personal judgment and the self-righteous Christian perspective of "right and wrong" and "good and evil." [6] Therefore, students tend to enter the class using vogue leadership buzzwords like "servant leadership" and "emotional intelligence." [7, 8] The new drugs of leadership buzzwords sell a lot of books, for those who buy them, not being Caesar...
Some people teach only Jesus of Nazareth as their example for "good leadership," which is their prerogative, but I rather also teach Abraham Lincoln, among others. [9, 10] This fact is exposed very early in student submissions in which they tend to state biased moral condemnations attached to the leadership assessment. It's the novice, "Jesus was a good leader," and "Hitler was a bad leader" statement, that is addressed in detail in The Conflation of Character [11] and Simplistic Vilification [*9].
To fulfill my pedagogical duty as instructor, I have to sort out the conflation of the word "good" as qualifier, which tends to be a moral judgment by perspective. Indeed, Jesus and Hitler were both excellent leaders. The distaste is not in their leadership abilities, but in their respective moralities, which are not the same thing. Empathizing and loving friends, and loving the weak and vulnerable, is one thing, but empathy and love for an enemy is quite another thing. [12, *11, *9].
Morality is perspective. If I show you a picture of a Hobbit facing an Orc and asked which one was "good" and which one was "evil," you would say the?Hobbit is good and the Orc is evil; but, wait, I did not tell you: You are the Orc. [*9, *12]
One of my common early chides goes like this:
There are classes that teach morality. And there are classes that teach leadership entwined with a certain perspective of morality. This is not that class. The science of leadership is the study of how the plane flies, morality is where the plane flies. The leadership plane flies with both abolitionists and slaves.
The study of leadership science, no less than any other study of science or the study of the science of human nature, is amoral. Science does not suffer morality. Science does what it does and leaves the morality to incidental concrete implementations. We gain truth, we lose bias.
Okay. I am now going to show you a letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley. When you read Lincoln's letter, please be careful. This letter is not for the weak, or for little children, or for the untrained. It is a brutal letter, and, as Shakespeare said, we are "not wood, we are not stones," but merely human beings. And, being merely human beings, Lincoln's letter may inflame you, it may enrage you, it may make you go mad.
But, I will try to provide a guiding comment. When you read it, remember that the letter reflected the mind of the Abraham Lincoln. If you are Lincoln's equal or his better, then you have earned the right to condemn him, but, if you are not, then you might sit down and read it trying to learn something from him. [13]
I will be a bit constructively bold (if not out of line), to suggest that, if your first reading of the following letter induces you more toward disliking Lincoln, then I will kindly suggest you are less skilled in the art, and, if reading it induces you more toward loving Lincoln, then I will kindly suggest that you are more skilled in the art. It will also disclose your biases regarding the dilemmas, and the pains, and the duties of leadership decision-making.
Lincoln wrote this letter to the media of the day, Horace Greeley, while the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves had already been drafted.
The structure is perhaps five parts: 1) the first paragraph where Lincoln, with warm cleverness, takes issue with Greely's tone and facts, but without taking issue so as to not get side-tracked; 2) the second and third paragraphs, being the bottom line statement of the primary objective of the letter; 3) the supporting wrap-around conditional "if" statements to get ahead of "what if" follow-ups; 4) the penultimate statement showing flexibility to adjust as context requires; and 5) the fifth part and final paragraph, where Lincoln clearly states his causal role and duty and his secondary desire for universal freedom, both of which are important but immaterial to the stated primary objective of the letter.
Here goes:
Hon. Horace Greeley: Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them.
If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours, A. Lincoln.
This is a brutally beautiful letter reflecting leadership decision-making that every school child should be taught to understand. Not for the purpose that everyone would use it in today's cancel culture; that is, to say Lincoln was a bad man after all, but rather to exemplify the dilemmas of leadership decision-making. Hard life choices that every leader must necessarily confront.
Many common people will read this letter and tend to like Lincoln less, because he is conceding slavery. But, what is exceptional, and perhaps lost in today's media-pervasive society, is Lincoln's clarity regarding the "Primary Objective." The word "decision" means "to cut." Life presents terribly hard dilemmas.
Lincoln's role as President was to sustain the Union. Lincoln knew his role, he knew what needed to be done, and he did it. [14, 15]
Listen to Lincoln carefully, including his last paragraph. Lincoln has absolutely no ill-will in his letter, but only the clarity of wisdom as to his Primary Objective, the fortitude to do what must be done, and the temperance and self-harmony to go only so far as the Primary Objective required. [*8, 16]. If we should have love and empathy for Lincoln as leader, what an incredibly difficult burden and dilemma for Lincoln. Be careful, listen to Lincoln...carefully, "I want to free the slaves, but I need to save my country more. I might have both, but I must have one. If I try to free the slaves first, then I will certainly split my country and universal freedom will be lost; however, if I try to save my country first, then I might also free the slaves in due course. But I have to choose which is my Primary Objective right now in my role as President." This is the critical lesson.
A sage knows what needs to be done and has the strength to do it. [*14]
Everything else was secondary for Lincoln, even slavery, for that moment of time. We understand something: Human slavery is the most atrocious human condition, and Lincoln made it incidental or used for the purpose of his Primary Objective to sustaining The United States of America, for that moment of time.
We further understand that the great abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, also had a Primary Objective to end slavery.
Abraham Lincoln would concede slavery to save his country. Frederick Douglass would concede his country to end slavery. Different men, different roles, different Primary Objectives. [*9] Their Venn-scoped unity was only on secondary objectives.
Perceive it—for those who are able—that Lincoln was clever enough and competent enough to save his country and also to get the 13th Amendment passed. Not only did he preserve the Union, but he also ended slavery. He wisely understood the necessary flow of decision-making. He accomplished both because he was disciplined to accomplish one Primary Objective first, against all pains, and then forward to the next Primary Objective. [17] Behold it, read it again, carefully.
Perceive that exceptionally rare disciplined objective-based leadership of determination without stubbornness, and the self-power harmony to adjust. Lincoln is leadership majesty.
To perceive the beauty of Lincoln as a leader is almost unbearable. [18]
领英推荐
I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
Abraham Lincoln, as an attorney, rational in cause, may understand the role of leadership for the President of the United States differently than a pastor. Never has a more masterful, merciful and majestic President existed in better form than Abraham Lincoln. He knew his role, he knew his duty, and he knew his Primary Objective. [19] And he understood that it was the Primary Objective of other people and their narrative to convince him to change his Primary Objective to their own Primary Objective. But, taking on all pains, Lincoln remained rational, open-minded, and steadfast to his Primary Objective. [*11, 20, *19]
And what is the real point of this confession?
Replace the word "slavery" with any current issue word you want: immigration, environment, Ukraine, Israel, zygote gestation, or anything else. Every issue that confronts The United States of America is secondary to sustaining the Union as a function of its prosperity. Those issues may be important, but they are not necessarily critical path to the Primary Objective, and they may indeed contradict the Primary Objective. Moreover, in a world of finite time and money, all issues are not equally important.
The majestic Abraham Lincoln did not run around on childish unfocused resource-depleting side-tracks that have the tendency to contradict accomplishing the Primary Objective. [*14]
"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it," said Lincoln, sublimely.
The problem that oft occurs is not the failing of leadership intention, but rather the failing of leadership competency to define the Primary Objective, and, therefore, failing to understand exactly what must yield to what.
Every issue is subsidiary and serves the question: "How is the Primary Objective served by this action?" Ascendant Abraham Lincoln succeeded because he knew the difference between what he needed to accomplish and what he wanted accomplish, keeping his eyes on the ball for what he needed, like a laser focused dog on prey, and persisting. Love, yes. Mercy, yes. Empathy, yes. And yet:
"Hold on with a bulldog grip, and chew and choke as much as possible." Abraham Lincoln to General Grant [21]
______________________________________________
[19] The Priest-Patton Scale; Or, Context-Based Human Resourcing [#GRZ_162][20] The Warrior Mindset - Stand for America? [#GRZ_80]
[21] The History of the Decline and Fall of the American Hegemony; Or, Seven Cardinal Deadlies—The Executive Summary [#GRZ_174] [#GRZ_175]
______________________________________________
Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.
Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
"Mores est biased." ("Morals are biased."); "Veritas amittit praeiudicia." ("Truth loses bias.") ~grz
The statements or opinions made in this article are solely the author's own and not representative of any institution regarding which the author is affiliated.
* Gregg Zegarelli, Esq., earned both his Bachelor of Arts Degree and his Juris Doctorate from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His dual major areas of study were History from the College of Liberal Arts and Accounting from the Business School (qualified to sit for the CPA examination), with dual minors in Philosophy and Political Science. He has enjoyed Adjunct Professorships in the Duquesne University Graduate Leadership Master Degree Program (The Leader as Entrepreneur; Developing Leadership Character Through Adversity) and the University of Pittsburgh Law School (The Anatomy of a Deal). He is admitted to various courts throughout the United States of America.
Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.,?is Managing Shareholder of Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC.?Gregg is nationally rated as "superb" and has more than 35 years of experience working with entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, including startups,?INC. 500, and publicly traded companies.?He is author of One: The Unified Gospel of Jesus, and The Business of Aesop? article series, and co-author with his father, Arnold Zegarelli, of The Essential Aesop: For Business, Managers, Writers and Professional Speakers. Gregg is a frequent lecturer, speaker and faculty for a variety of educational and other institutions.
? 2024 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
#GreggZegarelli #Wisdom #AbrahamLincoln #FrederickDouglass #Maxwell #JohnMaxwell #Leadership #Decisions #Wisdom #PrimaryObjective #Slavery #Economy #America #HoraceGreeley #StandForAmerica #Zegarelli #GRZ_176
TEV Law Group. Legal services for American entrepreneurs: Stand for America?
We Represent the Entrepreneurial Spirit.?