The Architecture of Loyalty: Why Orderliness Without Fidelity Is an Incomplete Trait
Contemporary trait theory, particularly as represented in the personality trait models, defines Conscientiousness as a composite of two primary subtraits: industriousness and orderliness. Industriousness refers to task orientation, persistence, and goal pursuit, while orderliness captures a preference for structure, regularity, and predictability. These subtraits reliably predict occupational performance, academic achievement, and life outcomes (Roberts, Lejuez, Krueger, Richards, & Hill, 2014).
However, in both theoretical and applied psychology, orderliness remains an incomplete trait if considered in isolation. While it describes behavioral tendencies toward organization and routine, it lacks intrinsic moral direction or value-based commitment. A person can be extremely orderly—punctual, detail-oriented, system-loving—without necessarily being aligned with any deeper structure of values, loyalties, or personal fidelity. In other words, orderliness does not guarantee trustworthiness in relationships.
In this article, I argue that fidelity, broadly defined as sustained loyalty to a personally meaningful value hierarchy, is the necessary complement to orderliness for building stable and ethically grounded relational systems—both in the workplace and in personal life. Without fidelity, orderliness risks becoming mechanical, impersonal, or even cowardly—a trait structure that favors compliance without conviction, and consistency without commitment.
This distinction becomes vital when analyzing the nature of loyalty-based relationships, which exist in three identifiable levels. Each level corresponds to a different psychological structure and degree of moral alignment, with profound implications for leadership, trust, team cohesion, family structure, and long-term relational resilience.
In what follows, I introduce a three-level model of loyalty and explore how individuals and organizations can identify and foster the potential to form third-level loyalty relationships—the kind that are both rare and essential for high-stakes collaboration, personal integrity, and existential trust.
Mechanics of corporate loyalty
In many high-stakes corporate projects and leadership evaluations, we frequently encounter a recurring desire: executives want to predict employee loyalty—especially that of key personnel—based on personality analysis. While this instinct is understandable, it transcends the boundaries of classical trait theory and requires a deeper understanding of both interpersonal and intrapersonal dynamics.
The conventional trait-based psychometric models, offer valuable insights into broad behavioral tendencies. However, when it comes to predicting genuine, value-aligned loyalty—the kind that persists under pressure, offers resistance to seduction by external opportunities, and maintains alignment even in ambiguous moral terrains—these models fall short. Why? Because loyalty is not reducible to any single trait, nor to a linear combination of them. It arises at the intersection of traits, internalized value hierarchies, emotional history, and perceived reciprocity.
In other words, any attempt to model loyalty purely through trait theory will be either shallow or misleading. Instead, the analysis must be grounded in a model that integrates intrapersonal alignment, value integration, and interpersonal attachment systems—a framework that reflects how loyalty is actually built, maintained, and tested.
The conventional trait-based approximation
Despite these limitations, many conventional strategic-analytic frameworks still attempt to approximate loyalty using established traits. The most common approach is to correlate loyalty with high Agreeableness, particularly its Compassion subfacet. The logic goes like this: more compassionate individuals tend to form emotionally meaningful attachments at work, and are more likely to perceive leaving the organization as causing harm to others. This emotional calculus can act as a soft brake on impulsive exits, especially when combined with a sense of mutual care.
Indeed, this mechanism does operate in real life. People high in Compassion may hesitate to leave out of emotional loyalty—not to the organization per se, but to specific colleagues or to the symbolic idea of "being there for the team." Moreover, there’s a deeper mechanism at play: induced reciprocity. Compassionate individuals are often more sensitive to perceived emotional debts and unspoken moral contracts—feeling a need to "give back" to a workplace that has, at some point, shown them kindness or recognition.
However, this mechanism has clear limitations. Under extreme pressure, competitive offers, or value conflict, Compassion alone rarely sustains long-term loyalty. Emotional bonds, while meaningful, can be severed or reinterpreted. Reciprocity, once perceived as violated, can rapidly dissolve.
Openness, Extraversion, and constrained opportunity
Another secondary approximation is to associate loyalty with low Openness to Experience. Individuals less inclined to novelty, experimentation, or existential questioning tend to stay longer in their roles—less because of ethical loyalty, and more due to reduced exploration drive. Similarly, lower Extraversion may correlate with reduced social exposure, fewer external networks, and hence lower perceived optionality in the job market. These individuals may "stay put" longer simply because fewer enticing alternatives enter their field of awareness.
These dynamics are real but should not be confused with loyalty in the moral or structural sense. A person may remain with an employer due to inertia, risk aversion, or lack of information—but that is not loyalty. It is passive retention.
Conscientiousness and the role of order
Among the personality traits, Conscientiousness appears most strongly correlated with workplace retention, compliance, and reliability. Within this domain, Orderliness in particular functions as a behavioral anchor: those high in Orderliness tend to follow rules, respect systems, and operate with a strong preference for predictability. They are also more likely to internalize external protocols and adhere to routine.
This trait does offer valuable predictive power for short- to mid-term organizational stability. Employees with high Orderliness are more likely to respect company structures, meet expectations, and resist erratic behavior patterns. However, this is still not enough.
Why? Because Orderliness alone does not explain why a person stays when values conflict, when a better offer emerges, or when the organization undergoes radical change. In such moments, fidelity—not behavioral consistency—determines the outcome. And fidelity cannot be extracted from Orderliness alone.
In other words, Orderliness is an incomplete trait. It predicts behavioral regularity, but not existential loyalty. What it lacks is a directional anchor—a why behind the rule-following, a value hierarchy that grants meaning to structure. And it is precisely this component—internal fidelity to a meaningful value hierarchy—that determines who will remain steadfast when the system wavers.
The honesty–humility trap in HEXACO: A delusion of loyalty?
In attempts to improve upon the limitations of classical trait models, several researchers have turned to expanded frameworks like HEXACO, which includes a sixth domain: Honesty–Humility. This trait dimension, comprising subfacets such as sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty, is often positioned as a moral antidote to the so-called Dark Tetrad traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. On the surface, this appears promising. It suggests that by identifying individuals high in Honesty–Humility, organizations could predict moral alignment, resistance to manipulation, and long-term loyalty.
Unfortunately, this assumption collapses in practice. Despite its theoretical appeal, Honesty–Humility fails as a reliable predictor of long-term, value-aligned workplace loyalty—especially in high-stakes environments and among intelligent, socially strategic individuals. The failure of Honesty–Humility as a predictive trait in this domain stems from three primary limitations—two of which are somewhat intuitive, and one more conceptually subtle.
1. The distortion of self-reporting under socially loaded terminology
The first issue is methodological. Self-report psychometrics, particularly when they deal with morally loaded constructs, face a well-documented challenge: intelligent respondents are highly capable of semantic and contextual reframing. Unlike traits such as introversion or openness to new experiences, moral constructs like sincerity or fairness carry culturally positive valence. Most intelligent individuals—especially those in leadership or high-performance environments—are acutely aware of what a "desirable" profile looks like.
This means that questions designed to detect Honesty–Humility are not evaluated in isolation, but rather interpreted through a strategic lens. For example, an item probing one’s tendency to speak truthfully even when it could be harmful is not processed as a neutral prompt. Instead, the respondent assesses what “truth” means, in which contexts, and how their answer might reflect on their reputation or alignment with the test’s perceived objectives.
Thus, response distortion is not a matter of dishonesty in the conventional sense. It is a deeper problem: the interaction between semantic ambiguity, social desirability bias, and strategic cognition. The smarter the test-taker, the more difficult it becomes to construct items that cleanly separate sincerity from performance. As a result, Honesty–Humility becomes less of a trait measure and more of a projection of self-image, which may or may not correlate with real-world behavior—especially under stress or in ethically ambiguous situations.
2. The directionality problem: sincerity, but to what?
The second limitation is epistemological. Even if a test-taker is completely sincere, fair, modest, and greed-avoidant according to their own standards, the problem remains: toward what are these traits directed? Honesty and humility, like all virtues, are teleological—they presuppose a value structure toward which the individual is oriented.
Let us take an extreme example for clarity. Adolf Hitler could plausibly be described as acting with sincere conviction, a strong internal sense of fairness (albeit distorted), and even a modest personal lifestyle by certain standards. He was not known for luxury, greed, or flamboyant narcissism in the stereotypical sense. His actions followed a deeply internalized, if horrifying, value system. If one were to measure his sincerity or fairness without referencing content—i.e., the nature of his values—he might score unexpectedly well.
This illustrates the fatal flaw in many Honesty–Humility assessments: they measure the form of alignment, but not the substance of values to which the alignment is directed. A person can be perfectly fair toward an ideology that is itself unjust, or sincerely committed to a goal that is misaligned with organizational or societal ethics.
The same problem plagues constructs like modesty and greed avoidance. These are not inherently moral indicators. A person may avoid greed because of religious asceticism, lack of ambition, nihilistic detachment, or a deep-seated superiority complex. Alternatively, one may express "greed" through relentless goal pursuit and long-term investment, yet remain fiercely loyal to an organization whose values they genuinely share. Thus, trait expression without value orientation is structurally insufficient.
3. No ontological optimum: Why trait-laden morality collapses under SIVH logic
The third—and most counterintuitive—reason Honesty–Humility fails as a predictor of loyalty is that there is no universal optimal score for many of its components when viewed through the lens of Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs). A person’s loyalty is not determined by whether they are high or low on any individual trait, but by whether their personal value hierarchy aligns with the organization's meta-structure.
This means that even traits traditionally considered “negative,” such as high greed or low modesty, can support deep loyalty—provided that the person’s ambitions are structurally integrated with the goals, values, and symbolic architecture of the institution. For example, a status-seeking individual may display extraordinary organizational commitment if the company provides a clear pathway to prestige, recognition, or influence—objectives they see as sacred within their own SIVH.
Conversely, an individual who scores high in modesty, fairness, and sincerity may leave abruptly or act in ways perceived as disloyal, not out of malice or instability, but because the organization violated their internal moral architecture. Their values did not shift—but the perceived misalignment made continued loyalty impossible. This disconnect has been observed in high-profile whistleblower cases and in industries where ethical mission drift causes internal revolts among even the most conscientious employees.
In this sense, Honesty–Humility collapses under epistemological scrutiny. Without knowing the content and order of a person’s internal value structure, the surface-level measurement of moral-sounding traits offers little predictive utility. As a result, the only viable path forward is to supplement trait analysis with models that explicitly map value alignment, such as the SIVH framework. Only then can loyalty be understood, predicted, and meaningfully cultivated.
Three Levels of Loyality Related Relationships
Level One: The Interpersonal Panopticon — The Illusion of Loyalty in Surveillance-Based Relationships
When analyzing loyalty in both workplace and personal relationships, we must begin from the lowest possible functional baseline: a state of mutual observation where no genuine loyalty exists. This base-level structure is best conceptualized through the Panopticon, a model of surveillance originally designed not as a dystopian metaphor, but as a utilitarian tool of social optimization.
The Benthamite Origin: Surveillance as Rational Order
The Panopticon, first proposed in 1787 by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, was conceived as an architectural innovation: a circular building with a central observation tower that allowed a small number of supervisors to monitor all inmates without the inmates ever knowing if they were being watched. Bentham was not motivated by sadism or authoritarianism. Quite the opposite—his goal was to create non-violent control mechanisms that relied on self-regulation rather than brute force. He believed that internalized observation would produce automatic discipline, and by extension, a more rational, predictable, and efficient society.
In Bentham’s own words, the Panopticon was not a punishment device but a “new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.” He proposed it for use in prisons, schools, factories, hospitals, and other public institutions—where behavior could be shaped not by physical enforcement, but by the constant possibility of observation.
Foucault’s Reframing: The Panopticon as the Architecture of Modern Power
Michel Foucault later weaponized Bentham’s invention as a conceptual model for modern disciplinary power. In Discipline and Punish (1975), Foucault argued that the genius of the Panopticon was not its surveillance per se, but its psychological internalization: individuals begin to watch themselves, correct themselves, and normalize themselves—even when no one is watching. Control no longer requires coercion; it is achieved through self-regulation, anticipatory obedience, and internalized shame.
This subtle yet pervasive form of control, Foucault argued, is the blueprint of modernity. It governs schools, corporations, hospitals, and even online spaces. It replaces loyalty with compliance, identity with role-play, and freedom with simulation.
Corporate Surveillance and the Architecture of Distrust
In many contemporary organizations—particularly those managing complex intellectual labor—Panopticon-like mechanisms have quietly become standard operating procedure. These mechanisms may include keystroke logging, camera monitoring, time-tracking software, digital productivity dashboards, and even psychometric behavior analytics. The narrative accompanying these technologies is typically sanitized and altruistic: “we are doing this to improve collaboration,” or “this helps us ensure everyone is supported and aligned.”
But the underlying message is clear: “We don’t trust you.”
For intelligent employees with high General Mental Ability (GMA) and high openness to experience, this hidden subtext is often not just detected, but repellent. It implies a dual betrayal: first, the organization assumes you are lying or slacking by default; second, it lies to you by masking surveillance in the language of empowerment.
This has a selection function. Those who see through the deception tend to reject the relationship entirely. Conversely, those who tolerate or accept Panopticon-like oversight may, by implication, be the type of individuals best suited for this model—those who value conformity over autonomy, predictability over creativity, and safety over sovereignty.
This is not a moral judgment, but a structural one: surveillance attracts those who require it. Loyalty, however, cannot flourish under such conditions. It can only be mimicked by compliance.
The Interpersonal Panopticon in Romantic and Family Life
It would be naive to believe that the Panopticon is confined to institutional spaces. It is equally prevalent in personal relationships, often under the guise of transparency, accountability, or “shared access.” In this dynamic, active surveillance replaces trust. Partners may monitor each other’s locations, message histories, bank transactions, or social media interactions. In extreme cases, partners normalize real-time GPS tracking or “mirrored phones.”
This is not a concern of data availability—we are not referring to the passive residue of digital life (e.g., Google location history or shared photo albums). The issue arises when one partner actively checks, verifies, or even interrogates the other based on such data. At that point, the underlying logic of the relationship becomes absurdly simple:
“I do not trust you. And I expect you not to trust me either.”
Despite elaborate justifications—“I just want to feel secure,” “I need to know the truth,” “I’m not suspicious, just cautious”—the dynamic is unmistakable: this is a loyalty-free relationship. It may persist for years. It may involve children, shared assets, and daily rituals. But at its core, it is not bound by fidelity. It is bound by mutual tolerance of dishonesty, constantly negotiated through technology, oversight, and pseudo-transparency.
This structure has a logical endpoint. It culminates in total technological surveillance: biometric tracking, eye-movement analysis, neural monitoring, and real-time behavioral prediction. In this future—already glimpsed through Neuralink, emotion-tracking AI, and biometric rings—the final veil drops. We are no longer partners. We are prisoners in a mutual Panopticon, pretending that surveillance equals trust.
The Whirlpool Metaphor: Always in Motion, Never the Same
In both corporate and personal contexts, relationships at the Panopticon level exhibit a peculiar kind of stability through fluidity. They may appear consistent, functional, and even intimate from the outside. But beneath the surface, the identities involved are interchangeable. Like a whirlpool beneath a running tap, there is always water in motion—yet never the same water. It flows, spins, mimics coherence, but bears no fixed allegiance.
This is the true metaphysical condition of Panopticon relationships: no one is loyal, because no one is irreplaceable. Trust is not earned but programmed. Roles are not lived but performed. And connection is not a covenant, but a contract under continuous audit.
There is no locus of loyalty to measure here—only a pattern of mutual compliance, calibrated to survive without belief.
Level Two: Greed-Based Utilitarianism — The Logic of Limited Loyalty
If the Panopticon model is a relationship of compliance under surveillance, the second tier of loyalty-based interaction is something altogether different: a relationship rooted in transparent mutual greed. Rather than avoiding exploitation through surveillance, it embraces self-interest as the stabilizing force. At this level, loyalty is not absent — it is compartmentalized. It exists only within the bounds of pre-negotiated terms, and it is anchored by utilitarian clarity.
Mutual Greed as the Ethical Basis of Capitalist Trust
In this model, employer and employee come together with eyes open. They admit — often implicitly, sometimes explicitly — that:
They do not know each other completely.
They do not care to know.
Their relationship exists to produce and distribute value, not to build emotional or ideological alignment.
This is not cynicism, but a functional honesty that often escapes moralist critique. It is capitalism’s most rational relationship model: a contract of interests, not a bond of souls. In many ways, this resembles the logic of mafia organizations or cartel structures — not in the criminality, but in the ethos of compartmentalized trust. What is agreed upon must be delivered. What is not agreed upon is outside the covenant.
In this structure, greed itself becomes a moral currency. The fact that both parties want something creates a reliable baseline: “I trust you to fulfill your end of the bargain, because I know you want what I can give you, and I want what you can give me.”
This logic works. It requires no ideology, no shared vision, no narrative of loyalty beyond the contract. It only requires clarity and follow-through.
Why Greed-Based Loyalty Is Morally Superior to Pretend Alignment
Such transactional relationships are often dismissed as immoral, impersonal, or inferior to “mission-driven” work cultures. But in practice, they can be far less toxic than misaligned loyalty narratives. When mutual greed is acknowledged and respected, there is no need for pretense, posturing, or surveillance. Each party delivers what they promised, and the relationship remains intact as long as the exchange remains profitable for both.
It is not loyalty in the deep emotional sense, but it is structural loyalty: reliable behavior within a defined scope. It avoids the dysfunction of the Panopticon because it trusts the greed of the other party to keep them engaged. There is no betrayal when someone leaves after a better offer — that possibility was already built into the model.
This makes Greed-Based Utilitarianism ethically cleaner than ideologically inflated or sentimentally entangled relationships. It is loyalty within limits — but it is real, predictable, and mutually beneficial.
Greed-Based Utilitarianism in Personal Relationships
This logic extends seamlessly into the realm of personal and romantic relationships, particularly those that are explicitly transactional. The classic example — often controversial, but analytically transparent — is the relationship between an older man and a younger woman, formed around an explicit exchange: resources for companionship.
One party offers access to wealth, travel, status, or luxury; the other offers beauty, sex, attention, or presence. It is not necessarily exploitative when clearly defined. In fact, such relationships often contain fewer lies, less gaslighting, and fewer false expectations than those based on performative monogamy or spiritual idealism.
A typical internal agreement might sound like this:
“I trust you to fulfill your promises, not because you love me — but because you are as greedy as I am. And I respect that.”
Everything is contractual, negotiated, and bounded. There may be clauses around exclusivity, behavior, and additional freedoms (e.g. “parallel partners allowed” or “no public disclosure”), but once the terms are set, they are honored — not out of sentiment, but out of self-interest.
When these relationships end — and many do — the termination is not tragic but procedural. One party found a better deal. That possibility was part of the design. The only genuine betrayal would be a failure to honor the agreed termswhile the transaction is still active.
Locus of Loyalty: The Other’s Greed
In this model, loyalty is not rooted in compassion, shared values, or interpersonal commitment. It is rooted in a simple calculus:
“As long as I deliver what I promised, you will stay — because you need what I give you.”
The locus of loyalty, therefore, lies not in the internal value structure of the partner, but in their greed. And this is not a flaw. It is a feature.
This model only fails when one party misreads the greed threshold of the other — either by assuming it is infinite, or by violating the transactional expectations without expecting blowback. But when calibrated correctly, such relationships can be surprisingly stable.
They may not provide spiritual depth or lifelong commitment, but they provide clarity, predictability, and a pragmatic structure for mutual benefit.
The Absolute Version: Mercenaries and Prostitutes
At its extreme, this model collapses into its purest form: prostitution and mercenary work. These are relationships with no expectations beyond the transactional promise. They are not immoral per se — they are morally minimalist. And they function well precisely because they are honest.
A mercenary does not pretend to fight for ideology. A prostitute does not promise eternal love. Both deliver what is promised — no more, no less. And as long as the price is right and the service is delivered, loyalty is maintained.
In this frame, loyalty becomes behavioral reliability, not emotional depth.
Moral Clarity vs. Sentimental Deception
One might recoil from the bluntness of this framework, but it is arguably more ethically grounded than many of its idealized counterparts. Where loyalty is faked — where people pretend to align but don’t, or where employers demand “passion” while offering peanuts — relationships degrade into manipulation.
In contrast, the greed-based model avoids this entirely. It replaces false intimacy with real transparency. And that transparency is what makes it viable. It does not insult intelligence. It does not seduce with illusions. It simply says:
“Here is what I offer. Here is what I expect. Let’s not pretend it’s anything else.”
And in a world where emotional ambiguity, romantic idealism, and spiritual bypassing often hide toxic power plays, that level of clarity can be radically dignifying.
Level Three: Value Hierarchy-Based Loyalty — The Architecture of Transcendental Alignment
At the deepest level of loyalty — both in corporate and personal life — we encounter a radically different structure. This is not loyalty based on fear, nor on transactional greed. It is vertical alignment with something higher than either party: a shared, structured, value hierarchy that governs both behavior and decisions with long-range stability. This is not just about shared values — it is about their internal ranking.
The key term here is not “values,” but hierarchy. And that distinction changes everything.
Why “Hierarchy” Matters More Than “Values”
Many companies, leaders, and couples begin with the question: “What are our shared values?” But this is a horizontal question — a listing exercise that often leads to superficial common ground: honesty, growth, creativity, trust, excellence, collaboration, integrity, and so on.
This horizontal agreement is easy because almost any word with a positive valence will gain consensus. Nobody argues against “excellence.” No one rejects “growth.” So, as a result, most companies — and many relationships — build value lists that are functionally meaningless: incoherent, unordered, and performative.
The real question, as Nietzsche pointed out, is never about what values we have, but how we order them. In his conception of the Übermensch, value creation is actually value selection — and thus, an act of prioritization. What value do you protect when two collide? That’s the core of all meaningful loyalty.
Horizontal Lists vs. Vertical Hierarchies
A horizontal list of values — no matter how long or inspiring — does not create loyalty. It creates moral decoration. It may look good in a corporate deck or a marriage vow, but it offers no guidance in a crisis. It cannot tell you what to sacrifice when values are in conflict.
A vertical hierarchy, by contrast, is a living architecture. It reflects the internal moral logic of the organization or individual. It says:
"Here is what we value most. And when two good things compete, this one wins."
Such a structure is hard to build. It requires painful honesty, especially for founders, executives, and key decision-makers. In our consulting work with leadership teams, the process of designing a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH)often leads to existential questions, resistance, and, finally, breakthrough.
A well-designed SIVH clarifies everything: hiring, firing, conflict resolution, prioritization, long-term vision. But it also makes absolute demands. And those demands form the foundation of loyalty.
Transcendence in Corporate Loyalty
In value hierarchy-based corporate relationships, loyalty is not located in the personality of the leader, nor in the immediate utility of the job. It is located above both — in a shared moral framework that remains stable across time and personal change.
Here, the individual does not serve the manager. Nor does the manager serve the employee. Both serve the hierarchy — the structured value architecture that defines what is good, better, and best.
This is a transcendental model of corporate life. It allows for lasting trust even in the presence of conflict, imperfection, and personal flaws — because the relationship is not dependent on agreement, affection, or convenience. It is grounded in shared moral structure.
When this alignment is in place, decision-makers gain more than loyalty. They gain moral clarity, internal motivation, and existential protection against opportunism. When it’s absent, no amount of “culture-building” will hold people together in a crisis.
This is the only level of loyalty where betrayal is not a failure of strategy — it is a violation of the sacred.
Why This Differs Radically from Greed-Based Utilitarianism
In Greed-Based Utilitarianism, loyalty exists within limits. Both parties know that the relationship ends when better options appear. In value hierarchy-based loyalty, the structure flips: both parties commit to the relationship because of shared allegiance to a top value that transcends personal interest.
This is not just “good culture.” It is spiritual architecture in the corporate world.
And just as in religion or high-level marriage, it is not easy to build. Unless the top value is something beyond greed, beyond “survival,” beyond mere “compliance,” the structure will collapse eventually — especially when the key employees are intelligent, high-openness, and morally ambitious.
This is why loyalty at this level is so rare — but also so powerful.
Personal Relationships and Transcendental Alignment
The same dynamic applies, without exception, in personal relationships.
When a couple enters a long-term bond — especially marriage, or family-making — they are not just aligning feelings or schedules. They are constructing an internal value architecture. If done well, this creates a transcendental frameworkabove both individuals, against which behavior is measured and decisions are made.
Without this, love becomes sentiment, sex becomes negotiation, and commitment becomes performative. But with a shared SIVH, even painful sacrifices become meaningful. Because both parties serve something higher than themselves.
One of the clearest signs of this structure is the mutual desire to have children. This is not merely a biological urge — it is an existential gesture that says:
“We believe in something beyond ourselves. And we are willing to structure our lives around it.”
This, more than marriage itself, is the sacred core of loyalty. It is not just about staying together — it is about orienting both lives toward a shared Absolute.
The Locus of Loyalty: Above Both Parties
In both personal and corporate relationships at this level, the locus of loyalty is external. It is not in the charisma of the leader, or the likability of the partner. It is not even in reciprocity or gratitude. It is in the alignment to a singular, top value that remains stable through time.
In theological language, this is monotheism. In psychological language, this is vertical ordering. In corporate structure, this is the backbone of moral alignment.
The absolute of this model is simple: both parties submit to the same higher value, and that submission governs their loyalty to each other. And when that value is clear — and internalized — there is no need for surveillance, manipulation, or even promises. Behavior becomes coherent because the structure is coherent.
The Pathologically Narcissistic Illusion — Why Level Three Loyalty Cannot Be Demanded
When organizations attempt to establish third-level, value hierarchy–based loyalty with key hires, a common and deeply flawed approach emerges: they focus on outward presentation, branding, and headhunting tactics, under the assumption that loyalty can be engineered through persuasion, perks, or narrative design.
This strategy is not only ineffective — it is structurally delusional.
The question “How can we find the best, most loyal employees?” presupposes that loyalty is a dispositional trait, or worse, a marketable feature that can be attracted through optics and rewards. But loyalty of the third level — true transcendental alignment — is never given to what you promise. It is given to what you are.
If a company operates on the first or second level of loyalty (surveillance-based or greed-based), then no third-level employee will bind themselves to it — no matter how elegant the pitch, how dazzling the perks, or how noble the slogans. The question is structurally misguided.
It’s like imagining that a random street preacher, barefoot and dirty, could walk up to Goldman Sachs executives, miracle in hand, and say, “Leave your careers, follow me,” and expect results.
The Jesus Analogy — Not for Optics, But for Ontology
Let us consider Luke 5:4–11, where Jesus tells Simon Peter to cast his nets once more. After the miraculous catch of fish, Peter falls to his knees, overwhelmed by the presence of divinity. Jesus tells him, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching men.” And verse 11 concludes: “And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him.”
Nowhere in this passage is Jesus selling stock options, offering incentives, or adjusting his communication style to match Simon’s Enneagram type. The miracle was not the reason they followed him. The miracle simply revealed who he was.
The loyalty came from ontological authority, not persuasion. Jesus didn’t ask, “How do I recruit better apostles?” He embodied the structure they would follow — a structure that answered their highest internal hierarchy.
The equivalent corporate question is therefore not “How do we attract better hires?” but:
“Who do we have to become, structurally and ethically, to be worthy of their allegiance?”
This inversion is essential. And it’s why many boards and leadership teams are shocked when loyalty fails to materialize — even after branding campaigns, pay raises, and visionary keynotes. What they miss is simple: the company is still operating on a lower loyalty model, and intelligent employees can smell the mismatch.
The Same Illusion in Personal Relationships
The pathologically narcissistic illusion is not limited to the corporate sphere. It mirrors itself almost identically in the personal domain — particularly among individuals searching for high-value, long-term partners.
We’ve seen this with numerous clients, both men and women. Many possess wildly inflated expectations of what they “deserve,” paired with a profound ignorance of what they actually offer — structurally, emotionally, or spiritually.
A clear example is what we might call the Victim Mom Archetype — a woman in her 30s, often post-divorce or after a series of failed long-term relationships. She’s typically emotionally exhausted, sometimes bitter, and yet still maintains a checklist of minimal standards for her next partner that would terrify most recruiting algorithms:
Minimum height: 6 feet
Minimum income: upper percentile
Must accept her child(ren)
Must own property in a suitable location
Must want or not want children depending on her situation
Must be emotionally available, physically fit, culturally refined, non-controlling, and have no ex-wife drama
This list — carefully worded, sometimes backed by therapy jargon — often has no structural counterpart in the real world.
The anthropological truth? With all else held equal (ceteris paribus), the statistically realistic number of partners who would satisfy such a configuration and voluntarily engage in a loyalty-based relationship with her is often: 0.0%.
Harsh? Yes. But mathematically sound.
The Meme Speaks the Truth
We’ve all seen the meme. A handsome billionaire in a private jet, wearing a tailored suit, staring into the distance with conviction, says:
“All I need right now is a single mom with a 15-year custody battle and a bitter ex-husband who’s still lurking around.”
His equally handsome friend replies:
“Bro, me too.”
The point is not mockery. The point is misalignment between perceived entitlement and structural value.
Just like companies trying to lure transcendentally loyal employees without embodying transcendent values, many individuals attempt to attract high-value partners without embodying high-value hierarchies. The logic is the same. The illusion is the same. The disappointment is the same.
From Image Management to Ontological Reform
What’s the takeaway — for both companies and individuals?
Loyalty cannot be marketed. It cannot be negotiated. It cannot be simulated.
It can only be invited — and it is only invited by a structure that deserves it.
This means the only real strategy is internal:
“Who do we need to become — not as a brand, not as a personality, but as a structure — to be worthy of the loyalty we seek?”
That question is painful. It dismantles narcissism. It forces humility. It usually reveals that the gap between what is and what ought to be is much wider than imagined.
But it is also the only doorway to building third-level loyalty.
And that doorway does not begin with outreach. It begins with ontology.
The Disposition for Betrayal — Schelling, Judas, and the Shadowed Core of Human Loyalty
The question of betrayal — its origins, limits, and inevitability — is far more fundamental than we often allow ourselves to admit. It cannot be reduced to circumstantial temptation, moral weakness, or situational ethics. Beneath the self-serving rationalizations we construct to preserve our self-image lies a deeper, more disturbing truth: the capacity to betray may be embedded in our very being.
Both Kant and Schelling, two giants of post-Enlightenment moral philosophy, addressed this possibility not as a peripheral concern, but as a central axis of ethical identity. Their frameworks challenge the comforting idea that betrayal is merely a lapse of judgment or the outcome of insufficient socialization. Instead, they propose a far more sobering reality: some people betray because betrayal is part of their ontological structure. And others remain loyal — not by accident, but by the unshakable architecture of their disposition.
Schelling and Judas — Betrayal as Freedom Realized
In his 1809 Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom, Schelling presents one of the most radical moral claims in German idealism. Addressing the figure of Judas — the archetypal betrayer — Schelling rejects the idea that Judas’ act was coerced or accidental. Judas acted, he says, “not under compulsion but willingly and with complete freedom.” His betrayal was not the product of ignorance or manipulation. It was an expression of essence.
Schelling continues:
“It is exactly the same with a good individual; namely he is not good arbitrarily or by accident and yet is so little compelled that, rather, no compulsion, not even the gates of hell themselves, would be capable of overpowering his basic disposition... This sort of free act, which becomes necessary, admittedly cannot appear in consciousness to the degree the latter is merely self-awareness and only ideal, since it precedes consciousness.”
This statement is pivotal. Schelling suggests that there are acts which, though free, are nonetheless necessary — because they express a person's pre-conscious essence. Judas was not “tempted” in the simplistic theological sense. He was Judas. Just as Christ was Christ. And the betrayal, as painful and horrific as it was, emerged as an act of metaphysical coherence.
In corporate terms, this means some betrayals are not about the failure of incentive systems, weak leadership, or cultural misalignment. They are about the presence of individuals whose basic disposition renders them incapable of third-level loyalty — not through fault, but through essence.
Kant and the Primordial Structure of Character
This same line of thought finds root in Kant’s moral anthropology, particularly in Religion within the Limits of Bare Reason (1793), where Kant describes the “propensity to evil” as something not acquired, but rooted in the very disposition of human nature. He writes:
“When I speak of one or other disposition as ‘inborn’ and ‘natural,’ I don’t mean that it hasn’t been acquired by the man whose constitution it is, or that he didn’t create it; all I mean is that this didn’t happen over time — that he has always been good or bad from his youth onwards.”
Kant acknowledges the uncomfortable truth that the moral architecture of a person’s character is established before any empirical act is performed, before “any action that is apparent to the senses.” What we interpret as choice may simply be the unfolding of a trans-temporal preference for certain maxims — structured outside of time, beneath awareness, and resistant to rational revision.
To simplify: we do not choose the type of loyalty we are capable of. That capacity is often determined by an invisible skeleton of prior metaphysical commitments. These commitments are not always accessible, and when they are, they are often distorted by ego or social conditioning.
The False Identification with Saints
Having encountered some extraordinarily loyal individuals — the Schindlers, the Bonhoeffers, the Solzhenitsyns of the world — many are tempted to presume their own character is cut from similar cloth. We cast ourselves as “the golden nugget on a beach of sand,” believing that, if tested, we too would remain uncorrupted.
But statistically, psychologically, and philosophically, that assumption is rarely warranted. Most of us are the sand — not the nugget. Our propensity to betrayal is not a theoretical possibility. It is a real and present structure, often masked by convenience, social constraint, or lack of opportunity.
As Jung later articulated — building directly upon Kant’s and Schelling’s insights — the shadow is not simply the repository of socially repressed desires. It is the carrier of one’s unacknowledged capacity for evil. And unless integrated consciously, it becomes the source of future disintegration — often under the guise of rationalization, moral flexibility, or “necessary compromise.”
Betrayal in Practice — Ontological vs Situational Analysis
This has immediate implications for the loyalty frameworks we’ve been exploring. In both corporate and personal life, betrayal should not be analyzed only through circumstance. It must also be understood ontologically.
In this context:
Level 1 employees (Panopticon-based) are assumed to be structurally capable of betrayal and must be watched constantly.
Level 2 employees (greed-aligned) are presumed to remain loyal as long as greed aligns, but are not expected to carry inner fidelity beyond contractual terms.
Level 3 employees — those who align based on SIVHs — are not loyal because of leadership charisma, legal constraint, or personal incentive. They are loyal because their internal structure is not capable of betrayal, not without self-dissolution.
That kind of loyalty cannot be trained or demanded. It must be revealed, often through a kind of philosophical x-ray: an insight into the person’s metaphysical architecture.
A Fundamental Question of Evil — The Judas Baseline and the Illusion of Innocence
To speak seriously about loyalty, one must begin with a sober premise: betrayal is not the exception. It is a latent possibility within every human being. Modern psychological research, ancient theological doctrine, and literary archetypes all converge on this point — what differentiates the betrayer from the loyal is rarely raw cognition or education. It is disposition, architecture, and moral formation prior to consciousness.
The popular tendency to view ourselves as “the rare good one” — the Schindler, the Therese, the Bonhoeffer — is statistically, psychologically, and historically indefensible. The facts of life, and the long trajectory of human betrayal, suggest the opposite: we are more likely Judas than Jesus.
The Theology of Ultimate Betrayal — Judas and the Inversion of Trust
Judas Iscariot was not an outsider. He was not a Roman bureaucrat, nor a Pharisee. He was one of the Twelve, chosen, empowered, and entrusted with proximity to divinity. His betrayal is not a political move. It is the archetype of betrayal from within the inner circle — and specifically, the betrayal of a benefactor.
As Matthew recounts (26:14–16), Judas sells Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. But the gesture is made far more grotesque by its mode of delivery — a kiss. The kiss, the symbol of closeness, is weaponized into treason. And the Gospel of John adds another layer: “Satan entered into him” (John 13:27), implying that betrayal sometimes emerges not from error but from possession by archetypal evil.
Dante understood this. In Inferno, he reserves the lowest circle of Hell — Cocytus — not for murderers, rapists, or tyrants, but for traitors, specifically those who betray their benefactors. This sub-circle is named Judecca, after Judas himself. And at the very core, Satan chews eternally on Judas, Brutus, and Cassius — not because they broke the law, but because they broke the sacred bond of loyalty to the very ones who raised them.
If a man capable of daily proximity to Christ could betray the Son of God — it is categorical naïveté to believe that you, as a manager, spouse, or benefactor, are safe from betrayal merely because you are “good,” “generous,” or “well-intentioned.”
Betrayal as a Baseline Disposition — Kant, Schelling, and the Shadow Unconfessed
As established in the previous section, Kant’s theory of the primordial disposition and Schelling’s metaphysical anthropology both argue that the capacity to betray is not circumstantial — it is a fundamental structuring force of personality. What a person is capable of doing under pressure is not decided in that moment, but long before — in their invisible preference for certain moral maxims over others.
Thus, betrayal does not emerge when someone is “driven to it.” It emerges when opportunity and incentive align with what has already been encoded into the subjectivity of that person.
This is why self-report measures of loyalty — such as personality inventories, honesty scales, or interview questions — are profoundly limited. They assess self-perception, not metaphysical fidelity. And the latter can only be revealed by history, pattern, and enacted responsibility under pressure.
The Importance of Betrayal History — The Personal Resume of Disloyalty
The first step in assessing loyalty capacity is not asking hypothetical questions. It is examining the lived record — the betrayals already committed, the justifications offered, and the narratives constructed around them.
For example, if a high-value employee has left multiple previous companies and each time claims their former employer was “a toxic narcissist,” “unethical,” or “morally compromised,” this is not evidence of discernment — it is evidence of disposition. Specifically, a disposition toward betrayal rationalized through projection.
Likewise, in personal relationships, when someone repeatedly recounts stories of abusive or narcissistic ex-partners — and especially when those stories contain zero self-responsibility — one must ask a different question: not “Were they telling the truth?” but “What does this pattern of betrayal narratives reveal about their own moral architecture?”
If a person has cheated, defected, or abandoned in their past — especially under the justification of victimhood — it is not irrational to assume they will do so again. This is not cynicism. It is structural realism.
The Judas Test — Betrayal of the Benefactor
The most important diagnostic question is not whether a person has failed under pressure — many do — but whether they have betrayed their benefactor. This is the ultimate test of loyalty capacity. And it is where third-level loyalty relationships often disintegrate.
When someone has received investment, mentorship, guidance, and opportunity from a person or institution — and then, at the first sign of personal gain, betrays that benefactor — we are no longer talking about pragmatic defection. We are talking about Judecca.
These betrayals often come with articulate, self-righteous justifications: “I needed to grow,” “They weren’t who I thought they were,” “I outgrew their vision.” But at the ontological level, what is being revealed is not growth — it is character fracture.
And once the capacity for this level of betrayal is expressed — especially without full contrition and accountability — it becomes part of the individual's trait architecture. Not because they are “bad,” but because that is who they are.
The Core Questions in Evaluating Loyalty
Loyalty is not a self-evident trait. It cannot be inferred from polished resumes, charisma, shared interests, or professed values. Nor can it be accurately measured by a single psychometric score or a set of scripted behavioral questions. Loyalty is revealed through structure — specifically, the internal structure that accompanies biological orderliness and the external commitments that give that structure moral weight.
Whether in a corporate or personal context, the best indicator of long-term loyalty is not found in self-reported affirmations, but in three core questions that probe the architecture of a person’s value adherence:
What are the most disloyal things you’ve done in your life?
What makes you believe you are loyal and orderly?
To whom — or what — do you hold fidelity in maintaining your value hierarchy?
On the surface, these questions may seem predictable or unthreatening. But their diagnostic power lies in what is actually required to answer them truthfully.
Disloyalty as Precondition for Loyalty
In our empirical research — both with corporate teams and relationship evaluations — one pattern has remained consistent: those who are truly loyal are the first to admit to previous disloyalty.
Not because they are pathological. But because they are realists. They have confronted their own failure, acknowledged the existence of moral deviation, and taken responsibility for it. This creates the psychological precondition for future loyalty: grounded self-awareness.
Loyalty without the recognition of disloyalty is not loyalty — it is delusion.
If someone insists that they have "never betrayed," "never lied," or "always done right by others,” the interviewer should hear alarm bells. This is not the voice of virtue — it is the echo of narcissism, spiritual bypassing, or performative self-deception.
“I Am Not a Good Person” — The Paradoxical Marker of Moral Weight
In truth, most loyal individuals do not believe they are fundamentally “good” — not in the simplistic sense. Instead, they recognize what Kant and Jung both affirmed: we are all capable of both good and evil, and this dual capacity is the substrate of moral life.
The minimum threshold of integrity in this domain is to admit that one has the disposition for both. And more often than not, individuals who have deeply reflected on their inner contradictions will confess something even more telling: "I’ve seen how bad I can be."
This isn’t confession as self-flagellation. It is structure. It is a person who has looked their own Judas in the face, and chosen, day after day, to remain loyal not because they are perfect, but because they are committed.
The Axis of Loyalty: Fidelity to Something Beyond the Self
Finally, the most structurally meaningful answer is to the third question: To whom do you owe your fidelity?
Not in theory, but in the moments where betrayal becomes tempting — who, or what, keeps you grounded?
If the individual cannot answer this clearly, they are operating from what you have elsewhere called unfinished orderliness. They may possess high biological orderliness — following rules, keeping things clean, complying with protocols — but without fidelity to something higher, that orderliness is just an empty shell.
By contrast, those who can name their axis of fidelity — whether it is God, family, children, a spouse, a transcendent mission, or even the company’s founding values — exhibit a far greater potential to form third-level loyalty relationships.
Because in those cases, their loyalty is not to you. It is not to a manager, partner, or institution. It is to a vertically ordered value structure that includes you, but does not originate with you. That’s what makes it durable.
Conclusion of the Diagnostic Model
In summary, the disposition for loyalty cannot be inferred from polish, ambition, or even competence. It is structured across three coordinates:
Admission of past disloyalty
Acknowledgement of dual disposition — good and bad
Defined fidelity to a higher axis — beyond the self
If these three elements are present — and the value hierarchies match — then a third-level loyalty relationship is structurally possible. Without them, the relationship will collapse into either Panopticon distrust or transactional utilitarianism, no matter how eloquent the interview, how appealing the offer, or how charming the persona.
This framework is not idealistic. It is anti-naïve.
Because if Judas could betray Jesus, then yes — they can betray you too.
Unless they have learned not to — by knowing just how real that possibility is.
Some of the References Used for the Article
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166.
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. W. H. Freeman.
Becker, G. S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. University of Chicago Press.
Bentham, J. (1787). Panopticon; or, The Inspection-House. London.
Bonhoeffer, D. (1953). Letters and Papers from Prison. (Translated by Eberhard Bethge). SCM Press.
Crowe, D. M. (2004). Oskar Schindler: The Untold Account of His Life, Wartime Activities, and the True Story Behind the List. Basic Books.
Dante Alighieri (1320). Inferno. In The Divine Comedy. (Translated by Allen Mandelbaum or John Ciardi editions).
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896.
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. (Translated by Alan Sheridan, 1977). New York: Pantheon Books.
Gillespie, T. A., & Zweig, D. (2020). To monitor or not to monitor: A critical analysis of surveillance in remote knowledge work. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(4), 568–589.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41.
Jung, C. G. (1959). Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 Part II. Princeton University Press.
Kant, I. (1793). Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason. (Translated by Allen Wood & George di Giovanni, 1998). Cambridge University Press.
Kierkegaard, S. (1843). Fear and Trembling. (Translated by Alastair Hannay). Penguin Classics.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. University of Notre Dame Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.
Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morality. (Translated by Carol Diethe; ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson). Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.
Parvet, W. . Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVH) framework. www.williamparvet.com; also referenced via www.selffusion.com.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563.
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. Crown Business.
Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, J. M., & Hill, P. L. (2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1315–1330.
Schelling, F. W. J. (1809). Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom and Related Matters.(Translated by Jeff Love & Johannes Schmidt, 2006). State University of New York Press.
Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations.
Solzhenitsyn, A. I. (1973). The Gulag Archipelago. Harper & Row.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143.
The Holy Bible.
Matthew 26:14–16
John 13:27
Luke 5:4–11
