Skip to main content

Leadership Styles: Love or Fear

"Here is a question that arises," Machiavelli once famously penned: "whether it is to be loved than feared, or the reverse." He continues,
The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved....Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present.
One of the lessons learned from positive leaders is that they evoke loyalty from those they lead, in part, by virtue of their vision and clear concern for their followers. This kind of leader need be neither feared nor loved by his or her followers because it "serves their advantage" to follow by giving them clear purpose. It is reasonable to think that Machiavelli is right when he says that men will forsake or betray a leader if it serves their best interest, if they believe their lives are at stake in a risky war, for instance; but I think of the same problem taking place in the case of a leader who uses a more Machiavellian-esque leadership style. Among the many assassination attempts on the life of Hitler-- a leader whose government relied on both repression and consent (see Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany) was one conducted by a German Jew named Helmut Hirsch in late 1936, who was executed the next year. If others had heard of this execution, it certainly did not stop them from making further attempts on Hitler's life (think Dietrich Bonhoeffer in 1943 and Operation Valkyrie in 1944). It is one example of why it is at least equally dangerous to be more feared than loved as it is to be more loved than feared.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Savior

This wasteland cold and dark runs free Its fearful creatures speak to me One fateful day one nudged my hand To set my eyes upon a tree He knew I could not understand For I was in his native land His signs became our common speech To lead me through the deadly sand Now stuck I saw him me beseech He could not lift me out to reach The firm foundation of a cave Outside the boundaries of this beach Withal, the beast became more brave To risk his own my life to save To carry me, its life it gave To carry me, its life it gave. This poem was inspired by Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening." That poem, like this one, has four four-line stanzas of eight syllables per stanza. Its rhyme scheme is AABA BBCB CCDC DDDD.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...
2 comments
Read more

Evil, According to Republicans and Democrats

Please note that the following thoughts are only my observations. Please consider the evidence you see in the behavior of both parties for yourself. In our politically polarized climate, I was thinking about how Democrats and Republicans are different, and where those differences come from. Democrats seem to place more hope in institutions, and seek to reform those institutions when there is something wrong in society. Hence, there is more willingness to levy taxes to offer more social services as a support to those with less than others. They see the state as a way to equalize society. Thus, evil, to Democrats, seems to be a social issue: if there is a problem in society--poverty, racism, climate change, etc.--it is a problem with the structure of society and must be addressed as such: repair the system, and you will solve the problem. They are generally accepting of a larger state bureaucracy because they believe that increased accountability within a state structure will prevent evi...
Post a Comment
Read more