Our leaders work under a cloud of “damned if you do; damned if you don’t.” Few decisions meet with agreement. Important decisions elicit vociferous opposition from all sides, occasionally leading to verbal attacks and even violence against individuals and institutions. School boards decide if schools will remain open, closed or virtual. A governor or CEO mandates vaccinations. Prosecutors charge Jan. 7 rioters and demand prison sentences. A legislature votes to decriminalize sale of addictive drugs. The Supreme Court issues a decision about abortion. The list of agonizing decisions is endless.
The aftermath of decision making is worsened when false statements and unfounded accusations accompany ad hominem attacks. An old proverb states that a lie circles the globe while truth is putting on its boots. New media riding the internet spread falsehoods and manipulative rage faster than it takes to establish the truth. Leaders are attacked for actions never taken nor planned. Even decisions requested are immediately judged too little, too late. Commentators are more prominent than news reporters and, unfortunately, distinguishing between the two is difficult. Information and opinion are inexpensive, whereas knowledge and judgment are expensive. Current dominance of opinion replacing news reporting results from economic business decisions.
Retirement provides freedom and relief from being in charge of anything and making such decisions. One can understand the temptation for leaders to delay or avoid making hard decisions that will generate division, attacks and abuse. However, inaction is also a decision. It is the calling of all civic leaders to make decisions for the common good, not personal or partisan advantage. The higher up the leadership ladder, the more affected people are, and, more controversial the decision. The sign on President Harry Truman’s desk stated, “The buck stops here!”— opposite of the “passing the buck” slang expression.
Ronald Heifetz, a Harvard expert on leadership, listened to a group of Indiana pastors discussing their leadership. He concluded: “You deal with every issue as though a decision between black and white exists. However, decisions between pure good and evil are rarely available. Good and effective leadership requires deciding between shades of gray.” His position does not lead to a moral relativism. Rather, it highlights the moral seriousness and acuity that must accompany good decisions, both individual and communal. Making good judgments between shades of gray requires well-developed moral character. Critics and commentators can easily get away with making an imagined perfect the enemy of any concrete good.
Good social order requires that citizens understand that leaders make hard decisions between shades of gray — even when we are not pleased with the decisions. It is wise to base criticism on knowledge rather than on falsehoods spread like wildfire anonymously through media. Moreover, constructive criticism with the goal of improving decisions is more effective than ad hominem attacks. Indeed, some empathy for leaders who must make agonizing decisions might lead to better decisions, more positive outcomes, and greater unity in our community and nation.
Raymond B. Williams, Crawfordsville, LaFollette Distinguished Professor in the Humanities emeritus, contributed this guest column.
