Amos Kern-Perets Responsibility in a Leader People generally believe that leaders should take responsibility for the actions

of their followers. But what is the nature of this responsibility? On the one hand, a leader is responsible for the righteousness of his followers actions, for it is he who commands his followers to act in a certain way. On the other hand, however, a leader is also responsible for the practical success of his mission as a whole. This might include the freedom or happiness of his people on a grand scale or, on a smaller scale, the protection of his immediate family. What happens, however, when the demands of righteousness conflict with the practical goals of the leaders mission? Judah, Zossima, Rosenberg and the Grand Inquisitor offer different responses to this dilemma and thus, by extension, about what constitutes the best, or most upright, form of leadership. In this essay, I will evaluate their views respectively, with reference to my own practical critique of the question. Judah, Zossima, Rosenberg and the Grand Inquisitor each exemplify a different type of responsibility that a leader can take up: At one extreme, Judah lives his life with the understanding that, in an existential world, no one need take responsibility for anything or anyone else. Yet, at the other end of the spectrum, Zossima weeps for the suffering of humanity as a whole, and urgently calls people to a life where everyone should take responsibility for everyone else. Rosenberg accepts that, paradoxically, sometimes one must lie precisely in order to protect truth and justice. While the Grand Inquisitor lies not primarily for

the sake of truth or justice, but rather for what he perceives as the long-term, orderly happiness of his followers. Judahs existential worldview leads him down a path where he is ultimately capable of ordering the death of his mistress in order to protect the happiness and stability of his immediate family. Although Judah is initially wracked with guilt for taking a life so easily, he is somewhat surprised to discover that he experiences no sense of accountability, not even from his religious heritage. When he realizes that he will not be punished by any person, nor by God, his guilt gradually fades away over time. Judah accepts his existential existence and forgoes responsibility entirely. What remains is only Judahs desire to protect what is personally dear to him. Ironically, Judahs life does not appear terrible to him in the absence of any punishment for his crime. For an individual, this can be a very practical and simple way to live - so long as they can keep their family happy and maintain an acceptance of their existential existence. As abhorrent as this psychology would be to someone like Zossima, Judahs lifestyle can bring an individual like him happiness, joy and satisfaction. However, Judahs existential life choices will have different consequences for a leader. Since a leader is by definition an integral part of the community that he leads, he must mind the beliefs, motivations and desires of the people in that society. And while an individual like Judah may be able to come to terms with this kind of existential existence, it is highly unlikely that a community of people would ever accept personal happiness for a few individuals, at the cost of social justice and laws for everyone. (Indeed, I would say that very few individuals could truly come to terms with this idea of existential existence for themselves either). A leader who tried

to abide by Judahs existential tenets, with no concern for social justice, would even more quickly fail to take on the responsibilities that his followers and the community around him expect from him. So long as the community does not share a leaders existential worldview, the leader cannot afford to disregard his responsibility for leading his followers. While Judahs take on responsibility, i.e. that there is none, might give certain individuals personal satisfaction, it is not fitting for a leader who must embody, and take responsibility for. the society as a whole. At the other end of the leadership spectrum, Zossima makes a universal appeal to everyone to love everyone else individuals and leaders alike. Indeed, he is more than happy to take responsibility for everyones sins on himself. He believes not only that he personally should be Christ-like, but also that everyone else should be too. Zossimas philosophy might be perfect for a small community, where everyone knows everyone else, and all of the problems are local ones. However in a global context, where large-scale, complex bureaucratic problems may not always seem important or relevant to a particular community, it is much harder to demand this kind of response. It is much easier to call on individuals to care about or fix these kinds of global problems in theory than it turns out to be in practice. In a world where everyone serves absolutely everyone else on the planet, we tend to have a difficult time deciding who will lead, who will do the work, and who will suffer the most so that the universal concerns can be addressed. When organization of the masses is required to solve global problems, would we have to resort to declaring that those with the most education and knowledge get to lead? Or that those who come from poverty will have no chance to be leaders, but must instead work in the

factories and in harsh conditions? This does not sound like the world that Zossima was trying to lead people to, but it does seem like one of the practical unintended consequences. For while Zossima does acknowledge that there will be those in charge and those who serve, he seems to assume that everyone should be happy loving everyone and merely resign themselves to their lot in life because it serves the general good. But is that an effective form of leadership? For example, making every person in a position of command responsible not only for those they command but also for the other leaders as well seems like it would only hinder leaders in their attempts to fix problems and to improve the followers quality of life. What good would come from reprimanding officers for the mistakes of other officers? What use would it be it to praise one man for the deeds of another? It is one thing to have an obligation to help everyone and something totally different to hold us accountable for everyone else. Zossimas philosophy is one to be admired in theory, but not in practice on a large scale. Zossimas philosophy would be much more helpful in the real world if it were applied in smaller units of organization and in local communities. On a large scale, other sorts of leadership philosophies should be considered. However, we should not undervalue Zossimas form of responsibility for micro situations. If people abide by his kind of philosophy in small groups, then the bonds of those groups will be strengthened, and their potential to realize their goals will improve. For example, if everyone in a small group knows that everyone else cares for them, is responsible for them, and is ready to take the fall for them, then they are more likely to act with a confidence that they could not afford if they felt they were on their own, or if they believed that everything depended on them alone. However nice to think that we can all be each others keepers, basic things like the distance between us on this planet, as well as

conflicting geo-political interests, may impede the practical effectiveness of an appeal to universal responsibility. Rosenberg, on the other hand, firmly believed in black and white justice. Perhaps for him, not every act could fall into a category of right or wrong, but many if not most could. He wanted people to answer for their crimes, and to take responsibility for what they had done. To this end, however, Rosenberg was willing to do whatever it took to expose the truth, even if paradoxically - it meant resorting to the shady and corrupt methods that he personally opposed in the first place. The type of responsibility that Rosenberg exemplifies is one that values the truth at all costs. But is revealing the truth worth throwing a country into chaos or making people unhappy in the process? Is holding people responsible for their actions worth more than peace of mind? In my view, seeking the truth in and of itself may have social value, but to value the truth above all else may also sometimes do more harm than good. Yes the truth is sobering, and when there are serious problems that need fixing, the truth is often instrumental in fixing them. However, there is not always a need for the most stark and brutal truths to be revealed to the society at large, and certainly not for the procedures that are sometimes necessary to uncover thse truths. On the one hand, a leader should never ignore the truth, but on the other hand, he must also not suppose that delivering the whole truth to his followers will necessarily raise their morale, nor convince them to continue following him, nor even preserve their happiness. Rosenbergs notion of responsibility is one born out of a kind of spite directed at those who hurt the ones who are politically important to him, and not one appropriate for a leader who needs to effectively organize the movements of masses.

Finally we arrive at a consideration of the Grand Inquisitor. I find his understanding of responsibility and leadership simultaneously repulsive, and yet at the same time practical. The Grand Inquisitor has the leaders take responsibility, but in secret. On his way of thinking, the leaders should cover up their own corrupt yet necessary actions with lies piled on top of more lies. Yet he believes in this noble lie supposedly for the good of the followers, so that they can lead deterministic, orderly lives rather than have to face the chaotic existential nature of their existence. This leads the Grand Inquisitor to the conclusion that God himself should be killed, if this means that the masses could thereby avoid falling into sadness and chaos. Indeed, this is precisely the responsibility that the Grand Inquisitor assigns to leaders. This dark and painful truth must also be kept from the masses by the leaders. Leaders of the Grand Inquisitors ilk take on humanitys suffering for themselves, so that the rest can be blissfully ignorant. His philosophy does not require that everyone agree with him, but rather only a select few who are in the know. Those select few will be the leaders for the masses, obscuring the truth and presenting in its absence their own lies that will bring satisfaction to the people. All four of these different leadership philosophies can be effective for an individual or a community, in varying degrees. But if we are to judge them purely on the basis of practical effectiveness, then one among them stands out as the most effective for a leader of the masses: Namely, the Grand Inquisitors model of responsibility. When leading small groups, on the other hand, I believe that Zossimas leadership example might be most effective. Judahs philosophy is one that I think could work only if all of the leaders followers could also come to terms with

their existential existences in a society as a whole which I believe is highly unlikely. Rosenbergs view is one that would bring much misery and chaos to the masses, rather than productivity or happiness - and all for the sake of punishing wicked political opponents instead of moving on to make a better world for everyone in the society. In conclusion, Zossimas philosophy of responsibility is very effective on a small scale, such as within an army platoon or in a small village, but not on a large scale such as when one is trying to manage a country or trying to run co-operative programs between countries. It may be difficult to accept on a personal level, but in order to make a large society run in an orderly fashion, or to make all of the masses happy, some social lies may be necessary. We could debate the value of a social trust built on lies, but so long as the leaders who provide these laws continues to seek the social good in private, instead of trying to benefit themselves, then like it or not - the Grand Inquisitors method works well. So long as the aim of a leader is to help his followers in achieving their goals, and so long as a leader does not employ means that contradict and undermine the purpose of society, nor the larger results that the masses are striving for, then a leader has a better chance of being effective although the morality of the matter is still up for debate.