Liberty, Leadership and Trust

In free societies, leadership is based on trust.

In other societies throughout history, leadership has been based on less worthy foundations: fear. greed. wealth. property. coercion. The men with the most money, or most land, or most slaves, or most socio-political power became the leaders. The rest of the people obeyed their bidding. Loss of job, loss of home, loss of family, loss of status, or loss of life came to the brave ones who refused to obey.

We have seen, however, that leadership based on this kind of tyranny is not sustainable. Dynasties built around these systems will eventually fall, usually by economic ruin or by the political uprising of good men fighting for their freedom (or of bad men fighting to attain their own positions of tyrannical power).

When people are free, however, leaders cannot be tyrants.

When people appoint or elect or hire or otherwise designate their own leaders, that leadership is based on trust. The followers choose a leader because they trust the leadership of that person. They trust that the leader will act in the best interests of the followers, and so they place their confidence and their individual power into the hands of this person. If the leader goes on to violate that trust, the people can impeach, or fire, or otherwise abandon that leader, and find another one.

During my undergraduate work I took an entrepreneurship class. In the class, we students were assigned to teams. Each team was to develop an idea for a start-up company, and to write a business plan for our start-up. Each member of the team was to be an executive officer of our "company."

In a team project like this one, in which all team members were equal, the socially comfortable strategy was to give equal power and an equal position to each member of the team. But as our professor (Dr. Phil Vardiman) wisely advised, this strategy was impractical. One person in the team was required to be the president and CEO, in order to give the final say-so if the other officers disagreed about some strategy.

So how did we, the team members, choose a president?

Among equal teammates, the rest of us had to choose the person whom we trusted with the best interests of the team. In choosing a president from among us, we voluntarily placed our power into the hands of one leader. We trusted that he would listen to our opinions and our counsel, and that he would represent our interests in his decision-making.

By entrusting him with our power, we also agreed to submit to his leadership even if a situation arose in which we disagreed with him on a particular point.

This kind of submission works because we the vice-presidents would have the power to fire our president if we ever determined that he was abusing his power.

When men are free, they are equals. When they are equals, they have equal power and an equal voice. In choosing a leader for themselves, they voluntarily place their own power and their own voice into the hands of someone who will represent them. Someone who will act in the best interests of all. Someone whom they can trust.

As a leader, you hold the trust of your followers. That trust is a precious thing, and is essential for a society - or an organization, or a team - to function. Violate that trust, and your leadership will be lost forever.