Rationality and discriminatory leadership

Managing means making decisions and managing well means making the right decisions. Simple concepts, but unassailable. But when is a decision right? And be careful because "right" does not mean "exact." An argument is correct if it meets precise, logical rules and adheres to them. But it is also true that a choice can be right without being, at the same time, logical.

The difference lies in the meaning of rightness, which in the second case, becomes justice. In the former case, it refers to our rational aspect, and in the latter, to the complex of our moral values. Problem solved? Not so much! The logical meaning allows us to oppose our rational choices to anyone by demonstrating our reasons, which, if well-founded, can only be universally accepted. The moral meaning does not allow us to oppose our reasons to anyone since moral principles are personal and cannot be conveyed by the force of the reasons behind them alone. Moreover, ethical principles change over time and space, and trying to ground them on intrinsic value alone risks triggering an element of circularity. In other words, their validity would depend on the principles and values they represent for us, activating all the consequent sceptical and relativistic motivations.

So, on what basis should a leader choose their behaviours, considering the observations made so far? By developing one's rational and moral dimensions in regulating one's behaviour. A leader must be able to decline the "dual nature" of the term "right" according to logical and social criteria. What s/he is called to is a highly delicate task because to move casually from logical-rational sequences to ethical-behavioural dynamics is only for some.

But, at this point, a sensitive issue intervenes: how does one handle diversity? To what logic must a leader who wants to be inclusive bow? Should they approach the problem from a rational (rightness) or moral (justice) point of view? Mind you, the issue of diversity is much more subtle than it appears. There are not just the manifestations of macroscopic diversity, such as skin colour, sexual gender, sexual tastes, geographic origin, different religious "beliefs," etc. There are subtle diversities, and because of that, they are much more complex to deal with. Think of differences in schooling or different dialectal inflexions. The elements that can inspire "caricature" discrimination of the "different" are endless. The phenomenon of discrimination is composed of micro-processes that, taken together, activate an overall dynamic that creeps into the most natural and widespread behaviours. On closer inspection - for one reason or another - all of us are victims of some discrimination. This activates a mechanism of discriminatory "compensation," whereby if I am discriminated against because I am bald, I may, in my turn, discriminate against someone fat, who may, in turn, discriminate against a gay person, who may, in turn, discriminate against a crude and ignorant person, and so on. In short, we accept being discriminated against as long as we can discriminate.

But how do we get out of it? Indeed, since the topic interests us from a leadership-related perspective: how can s/he, a leader, remain immune from discriminatory bias? Unfortunately, the answer is simple: s/he cannot! Or rather, s/he cannot overcome his prejudices without enacting an "unnatural" rational process. A leader must look at "the other" as a resource, an opportunity to make the most of the potential reposed in them. Accomplishing a project through simple reasoning (rightness) is an instrumental and rational dynamic. To mortify a person is to inhibit a "productive potential," which is irrational and, therefore, wrong behaviour. Once the discriminatory temptations are rationally overcome, the leader becomes aware of the great resource that each person represents. It will be easier to adjust one's moral values to principles that exclude all kinds of discrimination, to activate a policy of tireless and unceasing inclusion (justice). Only in this way will complacency about humiliation or injury to one's fellow human being become not the expression of a "bad" person -- something for which I know people who would hint at a self-congratulatory smile -- but symptoms of patent imbecility. And a leader who feels "bad" may decide not to change, but if s/he feels like a jerk, s/he starts to activate reaction forms.

If only to avoid being discriminated against.