![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
At the very bottom of the stack of realites there exists "physical reality." The laws of physics. But few if any human beings operate at that level of reality for more than fleeting moments at a time. Even physicists.
Nope. We are much more likely to be operating in "personal reality", the other end of the stack, based on our perceptions of the world around us. We filter the various levels of social reality through our personal reality. When someone's personal reality is too far out of sync with the community reality, we consider that person mentally ill -- "living in their own universe". (There are other causes of mental illness, too.)
In any group of people -- family, work place, social group, neighborhood, etc. -- the experience of reality is, more or less, the unconscious consensus that melds the personal reality of its members. Those who are perceived as the leaders are privileged in that their personal realities will carry more weight in the final form. Look at the joint perception of a group and it will reflect the perceptions of the natural leaders. When the individual perceptions of two or more of the natural leaders varies, major drama may ensue.
Perception, however, is everything. Most ethics codes now talk about the appearance of a conflict of interest rather than the reality of it. It is perfectly possible that no conflict of interest exists when a judge is hearing a case involving parties known to the judge, but it will appear that a conflict exists. And that appearance is what will cause most problems. Although I have no evidence to support this, I think a majority public scandals are perception rather than fact.
Gossip, for instance, is almost entirely based on perceptions of events rather than the actual events. Gossip is filled with opinion about the motives of others. it is a series of value judgments based entirely on the perception of those speaking (or listening).
A group in which certain dissatisfactions persist over extended lengths of time is being held hostage by the perception of systemic inequity. it does not matter if the inequity actually exists. Perception is the key.
To battle the infectious nature of slumping moral, group leaders must address the perception of inequity. This is no easy matter. Simply stating that the inequity does not exist will not alter the perception. In fact, it will worsen matters. Telling a group that their personal realities are flawed only damages the leader's ability to lead.
Effectively modulating people's perceptions is a high stakes game in politics, advertising, seduction and nearly every other aspect of culture. Great leaders know how to cause profound changes in perception while applying minimal direct influence.
People who are not leaders but are in positions of power are heavy handed. They use fear as their primary tool to change the perceptions of a population. (Think Dubya.) Their house of cards will fall and their ability to make things happen will rapidly decline. Human beings generally become acclimated to consistent threat.
In social groups, a leader has to juggle individual perceptions to maintain the appearance of equity. It matters far less if equity is actually achieved. (As if we knew what equitable distribution of resources and responsibilities actually meant.)
What issues might a leader be dealing with most of the time?
1. Appearance of favoritism. It does not matter if John Doe is, by far, the best person for a particular job. How John is assigned that job rather than Mary Jane or any other candidate is a lot more important that the actual assignment. What will be Mary's perception of the decision?
2. Appearance of fair treatment. Does the group feel that rules, regulations, laws, etc. are being equally enforced. It doesn't matter as much if they are being equally enforced. Is it equal enforcement, for instance, for Bill Gates to get a $300 traffic fine or for a poor graduate student? Equity is open to debate. Perception is much more important than the letter of the law. The world is filled with "unfair" laws.
3. Appearance of fair reward. How is praise (tangible or not) meted out? Is it a common perception that one's best efforts are not noticed or appreciated. It is a common perception that praise is well earned or just a routine expectation. If a group perceives praise as insincere or perfunctory, it will lower rather than raise moral. There is a pretty good rule for this one. When giving public praise, be as specific as possible about the nature of the action or behavior that is earning the praise. Vague praise will always sound hollow.
4. Appearance of direct communication. Often the appearance of direct communication is far more effective than actual direct communication. ( I suspect this is mostly because most direct communication is poorly handled. But, maybe that is just my perception. :-) This is important in the case of "rebuke in private." A public statement is needed, it just isn't the rebuke itself. We have the appearance, and expectation, of direct communications. Human beings tend to like specifics much more than generalities.
5. Appearance of Action. If the appearance of a problem is allowed to continue with no apparent action taken, moral will go right down the drain. It is the appearance of inaction that causes the drama. On the other hand, some kind of remedial action must take place otherwise the leader will begin to lose points as ineffective at best or a liar at worst. This does mean public rebuke is required, but something public and specific is required if the perception of effective action is to be created.
6. Appearance of tolerance. Every group has it's unofficial rules for who is and who is not acceptable as a member of the group. One's individual reality may, in a large group, not line up terribly well with it. In a large group, there will be "personality conflicts." Leadership must give the appearance of tolerance for the views of each member of the group. If an individual's views are antithetical to the group welfare, then the individual should be asked (or forced) to leave the group without attacking the views themselves. This is about being a leader without using fear as a tool.
7. Appearance of competence. It does not matter if a leader is competent. It is rare if a leader is actually competent in all the disciplines of the group. Sometimes, in technical fields, the leader may not have any education or training in the various disciplines. But it matters a great deal if a leader is perceived as competent. Competent leaders surround themselves with competent lieutenants. A good leader with seem to have good advisers. (This is the reason it is such a disaster when a political leader is surrounded by staff who are getting indicted right and left. It is the reason cover-ups happen. It is a last ditch effort to avoid the appearance of incompetence.)
8. Appearance of honesty. Because we are ruled by our personal reality, it is not possible to really be "honest" all the time. What is and isn't honest is often just a matter of perception. However, one can be almost entirely honest and still get beat up by the perception of dishonesty. As an example, political campaigns use "negative ads" to create the perception of dishonesty or incompetence. While I think it is important to really be "clean," it is the appearance of "clean" that makes all the difference.
Our personal realities are matters of faith. Most people in their day to day lives are taking their sense of the world at face value. We believe, without much critical thinking or fact checking, what our eyes and ears tell us is "real." (We wouldn't get through a traffic light if we didn't.) We tend to cling to our perceptions even with overwhelming contradicting evidence -- optical illusions are so much fun because they are a nonthreatening challenge to perceptions.
A great leader uses that knowledge to influence the perceptions of the led. A great leader influences the hearts and minds of his or her flock with gentle insistence, consistency, and persistence. It's all a matter of appearances; if a group that believes in the greatness of their leader, will follow that leader even if it's off a cliff. A group disillusioned with gladly throw that same leader off the cliff.
Perception might not be everything, but it counts for a hell of a lot.
Nope. We are much more likely to be operating in "personal reality", the other end of the stack, based on our perceptions of the world around us. We filter the various levels of social reality through our personal reality. When someone's personal reality is too far out of sync with the community reality, we consider that person mentally ill -- "living in their own universe". (There are other causes of mental illness, too.)
In any group of people -- family, work place, social group, neighborhood, etc. -- the experience of reality is, more or less, the unconscious consensus that melds the personal reality of its members. Those who are perceived as the leaders are privileged in that their personal realities will carry more weight in the final form. Look at the joint perception of a group and it will reflect the perceptions of the natural leaders. When the individual perceptions of two or more of the natural leaders varies, major drama may ensue.
Perception, however, is everything. Most ethics codes now talk about the appearance of a conflict of interest rather than the reality of it. It is perfectly possible that no conflict of interest exists when a judge is hearing a case involving parties known to the judge, but it will appear that a conflict exists. And that appearance is what will cause most problems. Although I have no evidence to support this, I think a majority public scandals are perception rather than fact.
Gossip, for instance, is almost entirely based on perceptions of events rather than the actual events. Gossip is filled with opinion about the motives of others. it is a series of value judgments based entirely on the perception of those speaking (or listening).
A group in which certain dissatisfactions persist over extended lengths of time is being held hostage by the perception of systemic inequity. it does not matter if the inequity actually exists. Perception is the key.
To battle the infectious nature of slumping moral, group leaders must address the perception of inequity. This is no easy matter. Simply stating that the inequity does not exist will not alter the perception. In fact, it will worsen matters. Telling a group that their personal realities are flawed only damages the leader's ability to lead.
Effectively modulating people's perceptions is a high stakes game in politics, advertising, seduction and nearly every other aspect of culture. Great leaders know how to cause profound changes in perception while applying minimal direct influence.
People who are not leaders but are in positions of power are heavy handed. They use fear as their primary tool to change the perceptions of a population. (Think Dubya.) Their house of cards will fall and their ability to make things happen will rapidly decline. Human beings generally become acclimated to consistent threat.
In social groups, a leader has to juggle individual perceptions to maintain the appearance of equity. It matters far less if equity is actually achieved. (As if we knew what equitable distribution of resources and responsibilities actually meant.)
What issues might a leader be dealing with most of the time?
1. Appearance of favoritism. It does not matter if John Doe is, by far, the best person for a particular job. How John is assigned that job rather than Mary Jane or any other candidate is a lot more important that the actual assignment. What will be Mary's perception of the decision?
2. Appearance of fair treatment. Does the group feel that rules, regulations, laws, etc. are being equally enforced. It doesn't matter as much if they are being equally enforced. Is it equal enforcement, for instance, for Bill Gates to get a $300 traffic fine or for a poor graduate student? Equity is open to debate. Perception is much more important than the letter of the law. The world is filled with "unfair" laws.
3. Appearance of fair reward. How is praise (tangible or not) meted out? Is it a common perception that one's best efforts are not noticed or appreciated. It is a common perception that praise is well earned or just a routine expectation. If a group perceives praise as insincere or perfunctory, it will lower rather than raise moral. There is a pretty good rule for this one. When giving public praise, be as specific as possible about the nature of the action or behavior that is earning the praise. Vague praise will always sound hollow.
4. Appearance of direct communication. Often the appearance of direct communication is far more effective than actual direct communication. ( I suspect this is mostly because most direct communication is poorly handled. But, maybe that is just my perception. :-) This is important in the case of "rebuke in private." A public statement is needed, it just isn't the rebuke itself. We have the appearance, and expectation, of direct communications. Human beings tend to like specifics much more than generalities.
5. Appearance of Action. If the appearance of a problem is allowed to continue with no apparent action taken, moral will go right down the drain. It is the appearance of inaction that causes the drama. On the other hand, some kind of remedial action must take place otherwise the leader will begin to lose points as ineffective at best or a liar at worst. This does mean public rebuke is required, but something public and specific is required if the perception of effective action is to be created.
6. Appearance of tolerance. Every group has it's unofficial rules for who is and who is not acceptable as a member of the group. One's individual reality may, in a large group, not line up terribly well with it. In a large group, there will be "personality conflicts." Leadership must give the appearance of tolerance for the views of each member of the group. If an individual's views are antithetical to the group welfare, then the individual should be asked (or forced) to leave the group without attacking the views themselves. This is about being a leader without using fear as a tool.
7. Appearance of competence. It does not matter if a leader is competent. It is rare if a leader is actually competent in all the disciplines of the group. Sometimes, in technical fields, the leader may not have any education or training in the various disciplines. But it matters a great deal if a leader is perceived as competent. Competent leaders surround themselves with competent lieutenants. A good leader with seem to have good advisers. (This is the reason it is such a disaster when a political leader is surrounded by staff who are getting indicted right and left. It is the reason cover-ups happen. It is a last ditch effort to avoid the appearance of incompetence.)
8. Appearance of honesty. Because we are ruled by our personal reality, it is not possible to really be "honest" all the time. What is and isn't honest is often just a matter of perception. However, one can be almost entirely honest and still get beat up by the perception of dishonesty. As an example, political campaigns use "negative ads" to create the perception of dishonesty or incompetence. While I think it is important to really be "clean," it is the appearance of "clean" that makes all the difference.
Our personal realities are matters of faith. Most people in their day to day lives are taking their sense of the world at face value. We believe, without much critical thinking or fact checking, what our eyes and ears tell us is "real." (We wouldn't get through a traffic light if we didn't.) We tend to cling to our perceptions even with overwhelming contradicting evidence -- optical illusions are so much fun because they are a nonthreatening challenge to perceptions.
A great leader uses that knowledge to influence the perceptions of the led. A great leader influences the hearts and minds of his or her flock with gentle insistence, consistency, and persistence. It's all a matter of appearances; if a group that believes in the greatness of their leader, will follow that leader even if it's off a cliff. A group disillusioned with gladly throw that same leader off the cliff.
Perception might not be everything, but it counts for a hell of a lot.