A while ago, Adam Grant described loyalty as allegiance to power and integrity as allegiance to principles.

Seeing this distinction was an interesting insight.

However, I disagreed with the more detailed description he provided. It simplified the context, making it hard to see that there are situations in which the description doesn’t help to deal with the situation. The fact that much of science in the Western world is perceived independently from the wider context easily leads to generalizing ideas beyond their scope.

Leaders who expect loyalty, indeed, tend to seek others to follow orders and show deference. It’s an attitude that seems to make leadership more fluid, where it in fact tends to close the door and prevent different opinions from appearing.

It is also true that a different style of leadership can focus on integrity. The idea of such a style serves to open the door and invite individuals to challenge those orders that violate their mission and values.

It’s not an either-or situation.

One’s commitment to a project or organization has to come with loyalty. Without it, nothing would remain predictable. Loyalty serves us in situations that may not be perfectly clear. It doesn’t replace trust, it describes a quality of the relationship. Being an element of the relationship, loyalty allows for an expectation of reciprocity. However, whatever the bond, loyalty is at risk once it becomes blind. It is how integrity can transform the relationship for the better through the ability individuals have to check in with their mission and values.

What checking in does is make a map visible. The one loyalty is based on. What may be uncomfortable in such a situation is that the check-in uncovers that there is no fitting-in left. That is something leaders can find provocative and individuals scary.