the ugly truth

“There is nothing so coherent as a paranoid's delusion or a swindler's story."

Clifford Geertz

He said, she said. Then there is always the “they” said. When differing opinions vie for supremacy and you have the authority/responsibility to make the decision, how do you decide? Which story sounds the best (and remember, they are all stories; a selection of facts and quasi-facts arranged to fit someone’s personal bias)? Which story is the most logical? Which option is the least political? I refer you back to the opening quotation as a reality check for when you have to decide to move forward on someone else’s opinion.

If the decision is yours to make, then you own the story. The paranoid’s delusion or the swindler’s story is now your personal delusion or your personal narrative. And you thought you were a rational, straight forward, logical person. Who is being delusional now?

The problem is that reform leadership and institutional change requires making choices. Even the paradigm of Distributed Leadership is a conscious choice to assume the responsibility for the opinions and actions of someone else. Maintaining the status quo is relatively easy: let tradition, precedent, and consensus rule the day. But transformational leadership requires changing the culture, changing the climate, and changing the instructional practices.

Change is conflict. Conflict requires making a choice.

The moral legitimacy of transformational leadership must arise from "conscious choice among real alternatives", therefore leadership operates in a context of conflict (Burns, 1978, p.36). The key phrase here is “real alternatives”. Real, versus a delusion or a swindler’s story. But how can you tell the difference? Here is the tip of the day: The delusional paranoid and the swindler will both offer their version of reality with complete conviction; if they are closed-minded and are unwilling to explore alternatives, then that should serve as a warning sign. I suggest that if someone has truly reflected on a course of action, then they have already examined alternatives and would actually enjoy debate or discussion on the issue to verify that the option they have discovered is the best choice. They should not mind help in defining what truth will serve as the cornerstone for maintaining the status quo or as the catalyst for change.

Research has shown that change involves emotion more than cognition. John Kotter and Dan Cohen (2002) conducted interviews in 130 organizations and concluded that "People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings" (p.1). So the “truth” must resonate with logic and emotions. According to Kotter and Cohen, the emotional component is the more important of the two. Therefore, one must be cautious of triggering quick emotional reactions when confronted with a choice. As the classic rock lyric goes: “What is it going to be boy, yes or no?” The first dilemma is to avoid making an emotional choice that you may later regret. The second consideration is recognizing that you own the emotional fallout of the decision.


“Motivation is not a thinking word, it is a feeling word" (Kotter & Cohen, 2002, p. 13). Emotions have deep roots, and once engaged are difficult to alter. The fundamental act of leadership is to make people consciously aware of feelings to the point of action (Burns, 1978). The term “consciously aware” suggests that you can craft an approach to rationally engage an emotion that coincides with your goal. The objective of your actions is to elicit the targeted emotional response that best suits the decision. Since you are the decision-maker, you are the sheriff and judge rolled into one when it comes down to making the difficult choice between opinions.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is more than a classic western staring Clint Eastwood, it is an apt title for your selection of choices. The “real” alternative would be the good, the paranoid’s delusion is bad, and being swindled is downright ugly. For the bad or ugly options, each one of them is somebody’s truth; and if you choose either of them, then you now own that version of reality.

Make a good day
Tod

PS. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

PSS. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books. Can be retrieved at: http://mccoy.lib.siu.edu/~jadams/300d/readings/Geertz-ThickDescription.pdf

PSSS. Kotter, J. P. & Cohen, D.S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

PSSSS. Meatloaf (1977). Paradise by the dashboard light. Music video at http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xodq9_meatloaf_-paradise-by-the-dashbaord_music

PSSSSS. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966). Watch trailer at: http://www.imbd.com/video/screenplay/vi2789278233/