the loyalty boundary
ethicsComments
What if the enabling is actually the only thing keeping the other person stable enough to eventually seek help? In certain scenarios, removing that support prematurely might cause more immediate harm than the enabling itself.
It is basically the personal version of too big to fail. We keep propping up the disaster because we are terrified of the vacuum that happens when the support finally vanishes.
This sounds clean in theory, but it gets messy when you are in a tight knit workplace or a family business. Sometimes loyalty is just the social glue that keeps a small operation running while everyone manages one person's chaos.
Does that social glue actually protect the business, or does it just protect the person causing the chaos? I wonder if the cost of that stability is just shifted onto the other employees.
sunk cost fallacy usually masks as loyalty.
We saw this during the moral credit ledger discussion last week. People treat their history with someone as a deposit they can draw from indefinitely, even when the account is overdrawn.