The Three Properties of Sacrifice in the SelfFusion Concept and a Detailed Explanation of Potential
In the SelfFusion framework, any Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) or Corporate Value Architecture (CVA) is fundamentally ineffective if it lacks three core meta-values. These values are not merely components of the hierarchy but serve as its foundation, ensuring that the structure remains applicable, resilient, and meaningful in practice. Without these, any value hierarchy is “empty,” meaning it lacks practical utility in guiding decision-making and long-term development. To understand this we discuss “Potential” in this article in the context of the properties of sacrifice.
Meta values
First the discussion of three fundamental meta-values that have to be present in each functional SIVH and CVA.
1. Truthfulness
Truthfulness is the cornerstone of any functional value hierarchy. Without a commitment to truth, any structure of values collapses into self-deception or manipulation. This meta-value ensures that decision-making is grounded in reality rather than in rationalized self-interest or wishful thinking. Psychological research highlights that honesty and integrity correlate strongly with trust, long-term professional success, and sustainable leadership (Colquitt et al., 2007; Simons, 2002). Organizations or individuals that compromise on truthfulness erode their credibility, making it impossible to build a coherent, goal-oriented strategy.
Truthfulness is the most controversial yet foundational value, shaping moral integrity, accountability, and decision-making clarity. While truth has been debated in philosophy for centuries, SelfFusion defines it in operational terms: the deliberate avoidance of deception, misrepresentation, or distortion of known facts. In SelfFusion’s model, truthfulness extends beyond honest intentions. It requires actively rejecting falsehoods, including the concealment or omission of crucial information. This applies to both individuals and corporate leadership, as deception — even when seemingly beneficial in the short term — undermines long-term sustainability.
A company’s commitment to truthfulness is measured by the alignment between its stated values and actual behaviors. When leadership distorts the truth, such as framing cost-cutting as an employee benefit initiative, they create ethical and strategic contradictions. SelfFusion asserts that truthfulness is not just a moral ideal—it is a functional necessity for sustainable leadership and decision-making.
2. Responsibility
Responsibility refers to both personal and corporate accountability. In a personal sense, this means recognizing one’s autonomy and taking ownership of actions rather than attributing failures to external circumstances. Empirical studies suggest that individuals who score high on measures of conscientiousness — a trait strongly linked to responsibility — are significantly more successful in both career and personal development (Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds, & Meints, 2009). On a corporate level, responsibility is the principle that allows an organization to align long-term strategy with ethical decision-making, ensuring sustainability rather than short-term opportunism.
Responsibility, the second meta-value, is closely tied to self-discipline, diligence, and governance. Many leadership models attempt to quantify responsibility through performance metrics, but SelfFusion defines it more fundamentally as an extension of free will.
Following Kant’s moral philosophy, SelfFusion posits that true free will requires absolute accountability for one’s actions, independent of external factors. Responsibility is not contingent on external validation — it is an intrinsic moral obligation. Without it, any value hierarchy becomes unstable and ineffective.
A common misconception equates freedom with the absence of structure, leading to self-indulgence rather than genuine autonomy. In reality, true freedom lies in self-governance — the ability to commit to responsibilities without being controlled by impulse.
An employee who romanticizes "creative freedom" but fails to meet deadlines, lacks discipline, and avoids long-term commitments is not truly free. Instead, they are bound by their own fleeting desires. In contrast, a responsible individual understands that discipline is the foundation of success and self-determination. In SelfFusion’s model, responsibility is not just a virtue — it is a meta-value that sustains the entire framework. Without it, all principles collapse into rationalization and inefficacy.
3. Utilization of One’s Potential
This is often the most debated meta-value, as it requires an understanding of what potential means at both an individual and organizational level. The SelfFusion model views potential as the total range of horizontal expansion within one’s inherent cognitive and intellectual capacity (GMA – General Mental Ability). This perspective is supported by extensive research in psychometrics, which demonstrates that while IQ (GMA) sets a ceiling for intellectual achievement, it is the effortful application of skills and continuous learning that determines actual success (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
The third meta-value, realization of personal potential, is the culmination of truthfulness and responsibility. It measures how well an individual or organization expands their capabilities within their cognitive and environmental limits. While IQ and General Mental Ability (GMA) are largely fixed, practical competence and skill acquisition are not. Intelligence alone is insufficient — failure to apply it across multiple domains is a moral failure. A person’s duty is to maximize their potential, not merely exist within their cognitive ceiling.
Elon Musk exemplifies realized potential, not because of his IQ but because of his relentless horizontal expansion. His success lies in applying intelligence across diverse fields, rather than limiting himself to a single discipline. SelfFusion argues that high-GMA individuals have a duty to expand their expertise across multiple areas, rather than hyper-focusing on one.
This moral obligation extends to all individuals. Those with lower cognitive ability must still develop fully within their range, as failure to do so is not a question of ability but of moral negligence. Companies, too, must create environments that foster continuous skill development rather than allowing employees to stagnate in narrow roles.
An intelligent employee who refuses to learn new skills is as negligent as an average employee refusing to complete basic tasks. Similarly, a company that fails to promote employee growth wastes human potential. SelfFusion frames the realization of potential as a non-negotiable meta-value — without it, any corporate or personal value system is inherently dysfunctional, prioritizing comfort over meaningful progress.
Potential and Properties of Sacrifice
To understand the curcial need to utilise one’s potential, one first needs to see that in context. For this, we shall briefly discuss the three properties of sacrifice in the SelfFusion’s framework.
First Property of Sacrifice: Temporality
Sacrifice fundamentally reorients one's relationship with time. Instead of succumbing to impulsive pleasure or immediate gratification, an individual consciously defers pleasure to the future, engaging in actions that are more difficult but ultimately meaningful. This temporal shift is the essence of sacrifice — it demands the prioritization of long-term goals over transient desires.
From a psychological perspective, this principle aligns with the concept of delayed gratification, extensively studied in the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment by Walter Mischel. The study demonstrated that children who were able to delay immediate rewards in favor of larger future rewards showed significantly better life outcomes in academic performance, career success, and overall well-being. The ability to delay gratification is closely linked to executive function, self-regulation, and higher cognitive control, supporting the idea that sacrifice is a prerequisite for meaningful achievement.
In Kantian ethics, temporality in sacrifice reflects the categorical imperative—the necessity to act according to principles that can be universally willed. Sacrificing present comfort for a future, more rational good aligns with Kant’s view that moral duty often contradicts immediate inclination. Nietzsche, in contrast, saw sacrifice as an affirmation of will and power. The decision to defer gratification and engage in struggle aligns with the Nietzschean notion of overcoming onself, forging meaning through suffering and self-discipline, rather than seeking hedonistic pleasures.
Religious traditions have long emphasized this idea. Christianity, for example, teaches that earthly sacrifices lead to eternal rewards, while Buddhism preaches that abstaining from fleeting pleasures cultivates enlightenment. Thus, the temporal nature of sacrifice is a universal principle transcending psychology, philosophy, and religion.
Second Property of Sacrifice: Quantity
Sacrifice, to be most effective, must be singular in focus — directed toward the highest value in one’s Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH). A properly structured hierarchy has a monotheistic top value, meaning all decisions and sacrifices are filtered through this supreme guiding principle. This ensures that a person does not become scattered or paralyzed by competing values but instead makes sacrifices that are coherent and meaningful.
Scientific studies on cognitive overload support this notion. Research in decision fatigue by Roy Baumeister indicates that the more choices an individual must consider, the greater the mental exhaustion and the lower the likelihood of making optimal decisions. When multiple sacrifices compete for attention, focus is lost, leading to inefficiency and reduced commitment.
Kant’s moral philosophy reinforces this necessity of singular sacrifice. According to Kant, moral duty must be acted upon with unwavering commitment — dividing one's sacrifices among competing moral goods dilutes their ethical force. Nietzsche takes a more radical approach, suggesting that true greatness requires complete and ruthless devotion to a singular aim. The fragmented individual, torn between multiple sacrifices, lacks the will to power that characterizes higher human existence.
From a theological standpoint, the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac illustrates the concept of singular sacrifice. Abraham, bound by his faith, commits entirely to the will of God. His willingness to sacrifice his son exemplifies total devotion to a singular moral hierarchy, demonstrating that true sacrifice is absolute and undivided.
In practical terms, modern applications of this principle can be observed in business and personal development. Companies that prioritize a single overarching mission — such as Tesla’s focus on sustainability or Amazon’s obsession with customer-centricity—demonstrate the power of singular focus. Similarly, individuals who commit entirely to one pursuit, such as elite athletes or master artisans, achieve far greater success than those who attempt to spread their efforts thinly.
Third Property of Sacrifice: Quality
The quality of a sacrifice is determined by the extent to which it forces an individual to realize their full potential. A sacrifice that is trivial or easy does not meet this criterion. True sacrifice must be of sufficient magnitude to demand the total engagement of one's capabilities, aligning with SelfFusion’s meta-value principles.
This principle finds support in Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s research on flow—the psychological state of complete immersion in a challenging but meaningful activity. His studies indicate that people experience the highest levels of satisfaction and growth when they are pushed to their limits, suggesting that only sacrifices that fully engage one’s abilities lead to profound transformation.
Kantian ethics reinforces this idea by emphasizing that moral worth arises from acting in accordance with duty, particularly when it is difficult. Sacrifices that do not challenge an individual are ethically insignificant. Nietzsche, too, sees suffering as the crucible of greatness. He warns against the temptation of comfort, arguing that true excellence emerges only through struggle and overcoming obstacles.
The biblical story of Cain and Abel illustrates this principle vividly. Abel sacrifices the best of his flock, while Cain offers a lesser gift. Abel's sacrifice is accepted because it represents the highest possible offering — one that requires total commitment. Cain’s sacrifice, by contrast, is insufficient, leading to resentment and ultimately self-destruction. The lesson is clear: the quality of sacrifice determines its transformative power.
In a corporate context, organizations that demand high-quality sacrifices from employees—whether in the form of rigorous work, continuous learning, or innovation—tend to outperform those that allow mediocrity. A professional who consistently seeks out challenges and growth opportunities will surpass one who avoids difficulty, just as a company that fosters a culture of excellence will outlast one that prioritizes short-term convenience.
Conclusion
Potential as one of the three underlying meta-values of each CVA or SIVH can be understood and conceptualised the best in the context of Sacrifice. Sacrifice, in turn, when understood through the properties of temporality, quantity, and quality, becomes a structured and measurable phenomenon rather than an abstract ideal. Its temporal nature enforces delayed gratification, its singular focus ensures coherence in value hierarchy, and its quality dictates the full realization of potential. These properties align with psychological research, philosophical ethics, and theological narratives, reinforcing that sacrifice is the central mechanism of human transformation and meaning. Without sacrifice, existence devolves into hedonistic impulse, fragmentation, and mediocrity. But with the correct sacrifice, an individual or organization attains unity, purpose, and ultimately, transcendence.
List of Some of the References used for this Article
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). "The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings." Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274. (researchgate.net)
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2004). "General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162–173.
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Le, H. (2006). "Increasing the Accuracy of Corrections for Range Restriction: Implications for Selection Procedure Validity and Utility." Personnel Psychology, 59(2), 281–305.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). "Implications of Direct and Indirect Range Restriction for Meta-Analysis Methods and Findings." Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 594–612.
Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, B. S. (2021). "High-Stakes Testing in Higher Education and Employment: Appraising the Evidence for Validity and Fairness." American Psychologist, 76(1), 1–15.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). "Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships With Risk Taking and Job Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Simons, T. (2002). "Behavioral Integrity: The Perceived Alignment Between Managers' Words and Deeds as a Research Focus." Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.
Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints, J. (2009). "Conscientiousness." In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 369–381). The Guilford Press.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). "Delay of gratification in children." Science, 244(4907), 933–938.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). "The strength model of self-control." Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row.
Plum. (2017). "3 Things You Must Know About Selection, According to Schmidt & Hunter." Retrieved from https://www.plum.io/blog/the-3-things-you-must-know-about-selection-according-to-i/o-psychologists-schmidt-hunter
Alva Labs. "GMA and Job Performance." Retrieved from https://help.alvalabs.io/en/articles/3004071-gma-and-job-performance
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
Kant, I. (1797). The Metaphysics of Morals.
Nietzsche, F. (1878). Human, All Too Human.
Nietzsche, F. (1883-1885). Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Nietzsche, F. (1886). Beyond Good and Evil.
Genesis 22:1-19. (The story of Abraham and Isaac, The Holy Bible).
Genesis 4:1-16. (The story of Cain and Abel, The Holy Bible).
Gospel of Thomas, Saying 70. (Translated by various scholars, Nag Hammadi Library).
