Friday, May 20, 2011

Mediocrity, incompetence, disability

IN all human ventures—especially those affecting the good and welfare of others—there are basically three qualifying degrees pointing out the performance rating of one behind the said human agenda. In their descending order, they are thus customarily known: Mediocrity. Incompetence. Disability. They are readily relevant and applicable to anybody heading a family, to somebody managing a business, and especially so to someone having a leadership position in a community and other human endeavors—with bigger or lesser social impact on others. It can be thus also said that as a matter of course, the respective opposites of the said negative traits are excellence, proficiency, adeptness.

Mediocrity is what characterizes leadership with but barely a passing mark. It is leadership that is neither here nor there, that is neither all good nor all bad. It barely delivers what is desired in the same way that it barely stops what is unwanted. Following are some of the words commonly used to describe the reality: Passable. Pedestrian. Inconsequential.

Incompetence is what qualifies leadership with an inherent liability in terms of inaptitude for the assumed task. This is basically the application of the saying that someone must be good at something—but not for everything such as precisely that desired and expected in a leadership office. Following are usual terms adopted to describe the given liability: Inadequacy. Ineptitude. Unsuitability.

Disability is what specifies leadership with an ingrained handicap, a given personal impairment or debility. Needless to say, this condition is at the bottom of all unproductive and ineffective leadership effort. Therein is understood some kind of incapacity in form of the following realities: Impairment. Inadequacy. Disablement.

It is but right and proper to point out the following truths in conjunction with all the above mentioned negations: First is that none of them is a willful option but instead a dint in human nature for whatever natural cause. Second is that none of them is thus dependent on whether it is accepted or denied particularly by the subject party concerned. Third is that all of the above said personality features in the order of nature, are wherefore, strictly speaking, beyond the reach of fundamental ethics and basic morals—as they are precisely independent of one’s knowledge and free will.

Finally, just as none of them is objectively good to have, so too none of them is objectively evil to be saddled it.

OVCRUZ, JCD

20 May 2011