There could be two types of loyalty, one that's logical and one that's illogical. Just like there are two types of faith, where we either follow based on careful consideration or pure conviction.
When in a contemplative headspace, I tend to view the latter as more primal and instinctive, rooted in emotion rather than reason.
By default, anything that's illogical carries a potent force that can be used for good or bad. Like a parent's instinctive, unconditional love for their child. Such loyalty drives people to extraordinary acts that defy logical analysis. May also be the realm where miracles tend to manifest themselves.
But this doesn't mean logic is less potent or a flimsy quality that can't hold its ground. Usually, it has structure and a sense of clarity, since you know what you're doing and why, based on a set of principles and/or values.
It's so much easier to have a framework to evaluate and adjust our loyalties as circumstances change. Less friction or unnecessary emotional turbulence, especially in terms of where or how to direct your energy and resources.
These principles can be grounded in professional ethics or merit-based allegiance, for example.
Compared to logical loyalty, where you've consciously chosen your allegiance, with illogical loyalty you're doing something without knowing why or questioning your motivations.
Of course, in the grand scheme of things, this may not be a bad thing, especially if you're guided by higher aspects of yourself.
I think many of us have experienced that sometimes what appears irrational in the moment aligns with deeper wisdom we haven't fully articulated yet.
With all of that said, the issue for me when it comes to the loyalty business is differentiating between these two aspects of loyalty in situations where both can be perceived.
Take, for instance, staying in a job that no longer serves your growth.
Logical reasons like financial security and career progression, alongside irrational ones like emotional attachment to colleagues or fear of change will pin you down into a state of paralysis that makes making the decision more complex than a simple pros-and-cons list would like to suggest.
And what's also interesting is both sides of the argument are equally valid, at least, on a surface level. It's the colleagues that make you look forward to coming to work the next day, sharing your time with them.
Financial security is something that you don't want to gamble with, particularly observing how unpredictable the economic landscape has become lately.
But then, it's crystal clear to you that this job no longer serves you in a meaningful way that aligns with your long-term vision or pushes you toward your true potential.
If we take a step back or rather step upwards, what I'm perceiving here isn't that different from holding a coin and deciding which side of the coin I want or need to look at.
In reality, both sides of the coin are essential parts of the same whole.
In this job situation, I might as well find a way to honor both by maintaining those meaningful relationships while gradually transitioning to a role that better serves my growth.
Or use my current position's stability as a launch pad to start exploring new opportunities that align with both my practical needs and deeper aspirations.
So, I've just necessarily round tripped from zooming in into the immediate emotional and practical concerns, then zooming out to understand the larger dynamics at play, and zooming in again on actionable steps forward.
Perspective matters, always, more that we'll like to admit.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
