If I was to shoot an arrow at the side of a barn, and every time an arrow lands paint a bull’s-eye, “scoring a bull’s-eye” would lose any real meaning. What is required for satisfaction is to be able to measure practice that is defined as successful. What is also required is that for success to have substance, there must be a way to fail. This would seem to be elementary in our shared understanding in that the distinction of success from failure requires the possibility to not score a bull’s-eye each time one shot the arrow. What easily passes as “common sense” in this equation as grounds for disqualification is far too often the intellectual model that governs the practices of people - leaders, in how they live their lives and even by default, influence others. Man may be the one that takes the measurement, but that does not mean he can conduct the measurement any which way that he pleases.

The center of leadership is the intelligent and complementary relationship between truth and love applied strategically to the situational need. If truth just depends upon the individuals right to choose its look, feel, and substance, then we have lost the potency of leadership within the specific leadership situation. A relativists’ claim to hit the bull’s-eye is like trying to place value on currency when everyone is allowed to print as much as they like. Leadership for the greater good requires a truth that is good, not merely local to the individual. It is one thing to hold a judgment of reality, another for that judgment to be grounded as correct. The seemingly present way of determining correctness and then its expression seems to be left to the toss of the wave or the display of wind. Truth cannot be alone specific to the individual nor can it be the mere recitation of dusty platitudes. It requires a dynamic relationship to Logos and to the community of co-leaders that join to impact the practices of people within organizations.