Sometimes, a bad guy is needed

This post and its title speak to leadership and the perception of leadership. Example: What if you're a 10-year-old kid and you need to go to school but don't want to go to school? Most would agree giving a kid what they want only because they want it is bad.

Next level thought: what if you're an adult leading other adults?

I'm choosing to dive straight into the deep end and hope my newsletter audience enjoys this opportunity to deep dive, into these deep thoughts too. Would the legal age be morally definitive when leading legal adults?

As in, if a team member says "no", am I (the leader) a bad guy if I don't agree with them? Or aligned with my opening kid/school paragraph, does age matter? Is age the most significant variable in morality? A kid doing what they want and an adult doing what they want could produce a similar output.

Perception = Mush

Leadership is the inspiration for this post and specifically, George Washington is an image I mentally carry around. I listened to a 20-hour GW biography 3 years ago and it was well written. This book included supporting personal letters from George to his wife, soldiers, and business associates. This well-written book and its supporting personal letters added a new empathetic layer (walking in his shoes) to old, well-worn stories.

Prime take away = Good guy is not the goal

The stereotypical image of "Good" is a bias. Example: Good heroes kill bad guys. Good fun could create a bad experience. A good choice today could be a bad decision in hindsight tomorrow. Good or Bad = null.

My last paragraph is a play on the definition but a playable play worth considering. Good and Bad (perspectives) are simultaneous. Functionally, I picture the double-split experiment and particle duality = the pattern inside personal perception is an output of observation, not logic, facts, or reason = The observation of results is more significant than the results.

George Washington was hurt by his choice to lead and he did it anyway. The war hurt his marriage, his business, and his mind. It's interesting to consider how many people disagreed with George (and the war) at that time = a lot and from both sides.

He did it anyway

Why? is my start and conclusion to this week's newsletter. Why would someone choose to not only be blasted as a bad person but also willingly give up a good life to do it?

Because someone needed to do it.

Someone needed to take the lead, pick the fights, and be the bad guy. Good guys serve a purpose and there's a well-scoped time and place for balanced agreements and emotional compromise = a good guy would have lost the war.

George's private letters to his wife present a different image than his public-facing articles and speeches. This observation hit home for me and messes with me a bit as I write this. George took the bad guy role because America needed him to take the bad guy role. It hurt him to do it and he did it anyway.