The passages given below are followed by a set of question. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
I do not pretend that the development of trust in leadership is a science or something that may be perfected " far from it. And I am not suggesting that the development of genuine humility, and finally trust, in leadership is by any means easy. It is the hardest thing the human creature called man can do. Anyone suggesting that he is, in fact, a person or leader of humility, moves farther from it.
Warren Bennis argues that leaders rarely fail because of technical incompetence. Instead, where leaders predominantly fail is weakness on the softer issues such as people skills, taste, judgment, and above all, character.
The most compelling leaders lead and keep their trust when they start with a proper view of themselves. By embracing this essential humility, leaders will not only influence and lead, but will transform the lives of those around them, reproducing leadership in others. This essence is what Professor Lewis would have referred to as 'mereness'.
Applied to leadership, this mereness occurs, first, when leaders develop a core understanding of their humanity; second, when they understand their depraved nature; and third, when leaders finally grasp that the purpose of leadership is not leadership itself. When this mereness is revealed in leaders, they build trust. This, is turn, properly allows them to serve others.
Whether you hold a materialistic view of the universe (that matter and space have always existed and nobody know why) or the theistic view (that there is something behind the universe that has a mind and a conscious purpose) we are in fact alike. Nothing like stating the obvious, but it must be stated in leadership. It is the foundation.
Even Sigmund Freud, who rejected a theistic view of the universe in favour of a materialistic or scientific one, still seemed to acknowledge some kind of unexplainable force in the universe. Freud experienced 'strange, secret longings' that he described as sechsucht. C.S. Lewis characterized his sechsucht as an unsatisfied desire which is itself more desirable than any other satisfaction.
Whether we are born in poverty or into wealth; whether we are born in Beverly Hills or in Calcutta; whether we are born with disabilities or not; whether we are born white, yellow, brown, or black; we are, in terms of these longings, and our human nature, intrinsically alike.
In terms of pain " regardless of our backgrounds, lifestyles, and worldviews " we all have, like the apostle Paul, a thorn somewhere in our flesh. While some acknowledge those thorns, others bury them deep within their souls not only to conceal them from others, but also to pretend that they do not exist. Do not deny for a minute that they are not real. We are the creatures called man.
Moreover, there are certain decent moral behaviours to which we all adhere. There are, in fact, laws of decent behaviour that without formal moral or religious instruction ought to naturally govern our behaviour.
Men have differed as regards what people who ought to be unselfish to "whether it was your family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone, wrote Lewis. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired.
Look at the corporate life: one of the common business practices over the last decade has been to manipulate accounting rules in order to maximize the earnings of public companies. Enron's former treasurer Jeffrey McMahon declared that Enron decided to obey only the accounting rules that got them the results they wanted. Inherent in his argument is the insinuation that rules may have been broken, but until he is caught or told otherwise, he will continue to practice.
While other energy companies also practised such accounting, it didn't make Enron's use of mark to market, and other creative accounting gimmicks (such as hiding debt in special-purpose entities), any more correct. Some of the blame for the corporate fraud of the 90s must be placed at the feet of regulators who made changes in the method of accounting standards, the culture of Wall Street that demanded aggressive earnings growth, and executives whose compensation targets were tied to the price of their own personal options.
Blame could be spread far and wide, but the fact remains that at some point some leader (not accounting rule) had to make a conscious decision to inflate earnings. Whether other competitors were doing it or not or whether the accounting standards were loose enough to enable them, most leaders knew such actions were questionable, if not outright wrong.
Excerpted from: 'Trust' by Les T. Csorba.
Q. According the passage we can infer all of the following, except
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?