The Contextual Nature of ‘Courage’ in the Workplace, According to John Cutler

In a recent LinkedIn post, John Cutler explores the nuanced and often context-dependent nature of commonly lauded professional virtues like courage, bravery, and discipline. Cutler challenges the idea that these traits are universally understood and rewarded within organizations, suggesting that their perceived value is heavily influenced by organizational culture and individual interpretation.

He opens by highlighting the common tendency to promote abstract ideals in career advice, noting the inherent problem with how these virtues are perceived in practice.

“Organizations reward *culturally legible* courage, discipline, and bravery. And your version might look very different.”

Cutler elaborates on this point, illustrating how the same action can be interpreted in vastly different ways depending on the specific company culture. He provides examples to underscore his argument:

The Subjectivity of Professional Virtues

According to Cutler, the definition of courage, for instance, can vary dramatically. In one corporate environment, challenging a CEO in a meeting might be seen as a display of bravery and conviction. However, in another, such an act could be dismissed as disrespect or poor judgment.

Similarly, the act of seeking help before reaching a crisis point can be viewed through different lenses. Cutler points out that in some settings, this proactive approach is valued as responsible self-management, while in others, it might be misconstrued as a sign of dependence or a lack of ownership.

“In some companies courage looks like challenging the CEO in a meeting. In others, that same behavior might register as disrespect (or poor judgment).”

Cultural Legibility and Behavioral Identification

A significant challenge, as Cutler explains, is that individuals and organizations often become attached to a single, specific manifestation of these virtues. This can make it difficult to recognize or appreciate alternative expressions of the same underlying quality.

When a particular behavior becomes the sole identifier for a virtue, it can stifle broader understanding. Cutler states that once a company or an individual identifies with one specific way a virtue is expressed, it becomes harder to conceive of other valid forms.

“The big challenge is that people don’t just come to value courage, discipline, or bravery. They often come to identify with one particular expression.”

He further expands on this, suggesting that the virtue itself can be good and worth valuing, even if its outward appearance is not uniform.

Separating Virtue from its Expression

The core insight Cutler offers is the possibility of decoupling the underlying virtue from its culturally preferred or context-specific expression. He argues that it is possible to believe in the inherent goodness of courage, bravery, and discipline while simultaneously acknowledging that their manifestation is entirely contextual.

In Cutler’s view, the underlying virtue—be it courage, discipline, persistence, honesty, resilience, or conviction—can remain valuable, irrespective of how it is demonstrated. The way these virtues are shown depends on a complex interplay of factors including the individual, the specific situation, the prevailing culture, and the immediate requirements of the moment.

This perspective encourages a more flexible and inclusive understanding of professional conduct, emphasizing that true value lies in the intention and principle behind the action, rather than a rigid adherence to a single, prescribed behavioral model. As John Cutler concludes, the virtue can indeed be separated from one culturally preferred expression.