Thursday, September 25, 2014
Machavellian Leadership
Machiavelli's philosophy and ideas on leadership are sometimes ambiguous. Although private morality may rest on factors such as divine approval, personal character, or abstract duties, in public life only the praise and blame of fellow human beings really counts. Thus, Machiavelli supposed, the ruler needs to acquire a good reputation while actually doing whatever wrong seems necessary in the circumstance (Prince 18). Thus, rulers must seem to be generous while spending their money
wisely, appear to be compassionate while ruling their armies cruelly, and act
with great cunning while cultivating a reputation for integrity. Although it is
desirable to be both loved and feared by one's subjects, it is difficult to
achieve both, and of the two, Machiavelli declared, it is far safer for the
ruler to be feared (Prince 17). Expand on this principle and provide examples in real life that illustrate your approval or disapproval of Machiavelli's principle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Machiavelli mentioned in his work that it is greater to be feared than loved. I disagree with his reasoning. In life, one needs other people around to comfort them and make them feel wanted. If people were afraid of each other, life would be every man for himself. This lack of communication driven by the fear of one another would cause complete chaos. The good in this world is rooted from and starts with love.
ReplyDeleteWhen love is given, it is also distributed by the receiver. This is how peace is placed in the lives of the people. For example, the parents who are afraid of having a child once it is conceived either give it up for adoption or abort it. In this sense, fear is either driving a couple to kill or give up a child to someone else. When looking at the situation this way, it is obvious that one should send the baby to an orphanage. When speaking to some orphans in my life, I learned that the orphanage is not a great environment to live in. There is a lack of love. However, when one gets adopted, the love felt by the orphan is reflected in their eyes and in their being. It is truly a beautiful sight.
Machiavelli believes that fear of a leader will keep them safe. What, really, will it keep them safe from? The things that happen on this earth either help or harm a person. As a catholic, it is believed that when we are judged by God at the end of time, it only comes down to one person. I will only be judged for what I do and will not be compared to anybody else. Being feared will not drive anyone to go out of their way to comfort others. Being feared will not reflect a Christian image. It is love that can do these things.
When Machiavelli mentions that a leader can perform bad deeds with a good reputation, he is incorrect. Even if one is persecuted for a good deed or is forced out of their leadership position, it is better to do what is right in the long run. Love will give you the power to act with human interaction o what is correct. Like my parents have always told me: the world sees what you did, the Lord sees why you did it.
I agree you with Grace. People do want to feel wanted. When true love is distributed, people feel it. I think that is true that things that happen on this earth can either help or harm a person, depending on what the situation is and especially on who is ruling your country. When someone comes into power, they have a choice: Do I really want to help these people, or should I just let everything go and harm them? We all hope they will love us enough to help us, and know that is why we put them in office. But a leader who doesn't want to be loved, won't have this philosophy, and I think that's sad that someone would want to feared. Nelson Mandela is a leader who was loved, and look at the good he did for the people of Africa. Especially since he was a man who was jailed for helping people. So, I don't believe that someone has to be feared to a good ruler. I think the good ruler is a loved person that people can trust.
DeleteI enjoyed the point you made about how if we all feared one another, life would be every man for himself. That brings about an interesting perspective. Each individual has their own desire to be either feared or loved. That is part of what makes us human brings in possession of a will - we can decide these things for ourselves. But imagine that every person in the world shared the same desire to be feared. If each person is feared by someone else, then each person would live in fear of someone else. This, as you stated, would create a large cycle of fear of one another, and what good would that bring us? We would no longer trust anyone, for fear that they might overpower us. We would no longer have companions, for fear that they would turn their backs on us. If life was simply an ongoing race for power, how chaotic would it turn out to be? Now let us consider for a moment if everyone were to desire to be loved. Would this not create a much easier system? If everyone were to act with this love that they desire for themselves, the world would hold much less solidarity and much more companionship. Ultimately, this system would result in the coming together of the individuals of the world, allowing them to work together to achieve a common goal.
DeleteI love all of your examples. My favorite one would have to be when you talk about God judging us at the end of our time, how it is only about yourself and not how others thought of you, it's about God. I would differently say though that the reason for some of others actions are because they are getting judge by others and don't know how to deal with it. In reality, they should take it with a gain of salt because it only come down to how God sees you.
DeleteI diffidently disagree with Machiavelli's statement of being feared is better then being loved. We crave the love everyone gives us, from our family to friends. It's just something that us humans do. If you were feared by everyone, you would get lonely and depressed. It's because for love we need the human touch, we need people beside our side for help. No one can go though life alone.
I also enjoyed how you talked about the judgement at the end of our lives. In the end, it will only be our actions that will either be our salvation or damnation. I also agree with you on that other people's thoughts of us do not even matter. Who cares if other people do not like us? Are we not on this world for ourselves, only? We cannot live our whole lives trying to please others. Many people are under the impression that only people who are feared have power. I believe that the people who are well liked and respected have more power because others will be more willing to help them. If someone has been mean to you for the a long period of time, how willing would you be to help them in their time of need?
DeleteI disagree with Machiavelli. I think it is better to be loved, but for the right reasons. You don't want to build a following of people who love you based on false pretenses. This means that people are going to love you because you are who you say you are. In the example stated in the prompt, it talks about seeming compassionate while ruling armies cruelly. If I were a leader, I would want to be loved not because I seem compassionate, but am compassionate. In order to gain the trust of people, you need to be who you say you are. A reputation based on falsehood isn't going to go very far, and people will sense that.
ReplyDeleteIn order to be a peaceful state, I think you need love. A ruler has to think about the well being of his people and not just go into war because he wants to conquer a state. He has to love his people enough to put aside his own selfish desire to gain another state and save lives by not going into war to get it. Would he rather be feared by his people on what his next move may be and how it will impact them? Machiavelli believes that the leader who is feared is good. I think that Machiavelli believes that if people fear him, they will never cross him, which will leave him in his position of power. As he says in "The Prince", "....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." He believes that if people always fear him, then they will always keep there distance. Distance is safe. Yet love, is so much more complicated. It can be fickle, or it can be forever. It can begin today, and end tomorrow. But fear is so much more permanent. When you fear something, you fear it. And when you love something, you may love it now and not later. Love seems to scare Machiavelli a little bit because it is breakable, and he seems to be the type of person who doesn't want to be broken.
What if God was like Machiavelli? Could you imagine if he made the world fear him? He sure would not be like we see him as today. In the bible, God is a constant figure of love and forgiveness. What if he threatened us that if we didn't worship him, he would kill us? We certainly would have a different relationship with him than we do today. But instead, God wanted to be a leader that was loved! And it certainly worked for him, having millions of people across all spans of time and all over the world loving him and worshipping him. Why does God do this? Because it is the christian characteristic that he embedded in each and everyone of us. He is a prime example that a leader doesn't have to use scare tactics to be respected, but present themselves as they truly are, and people love him just for that. He puts the same characteristic of leading with love in all humanity, it is just that some choose not to act on it. I think that if more countries with ruled with a genuine ruler who truly meant well, we would be in a better state then we are in today, as that is the leader who is really working with the end in mind. The difference? He is working toward the right end, and that is the one that doesn't include shortcuts that are intended to hurt the people he has worked so hard to gain the respect of. He is running his state off of true love for his people; and that is what makes a difference.
I loved how you stated your belief that Machiavelli seems to fear love. I have truly never thought of it that way. Machiavelli seems as if he is the type of person who craves the assurance that he is secure. He does not feel this security when he encounters something that has the potential to fall apart. As I stated in my own blog, there is a distinction between it being better to be feared and it being safer to be feared. Machiavelli understands that love has a potential to fall apart, and immediately retreats because of that. Whereas, in terms of fear, it is much more persistent. When one develops a fear of something, as you mentioned, it is unlikely that they will overcome it without difficulty. Thus, Machiavelli turns to the more secure option, the one that will being him imperishable strength. Perhaps Machiavelli experienced a profound loss of love, causing his perception of the concept to be altered. So, he turns instead to fear, because fear, unlike love, cannot be easily destroyed.
DeleteAlthough fear is safe, love is rewarding. You are correct when you mentioned that fear means distancing yourself from others. Making one fear you involves little to no risks, but what is the fun in that? The feeling of love is so powerful that man does not want to be without it. Saying that one would wrather be feared than loved means that that person is afraid himself. Machiavelli wanted to take no chances when he said that he would like to be feared instead of loved. In today's time, if a leader was feared, not many individuals would speak out with their own ideas. This would result in a leader with power over everyone. Yes, fear may give you power, but love is a risk that is worth taking. Many people would much rather have a leader who is courageous himself than one who fears losing their own power. A leader needs to be someone who takes the right way, even if it is the hard way.
DeleteI agree with the idea that fear is not anything compared to love. Anybody can really cause terror amongst the people they lead, but it takes a certain kind of person to be appropriated and loved. It is a matter of respect, I do not believe that people really have respect for someone they are deathly afraid of, they do respect someone who put forth effort to form a bond with them. We need to learn from that and stop trying to intimidate people so they notice us, but rather build a bond with them and earn their trust. That will get more of a production done on their part if they want to impress the person. So, I agree Olivia, love is better than fear.
Delete"It is far safer to be feared than loved."
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli makes a very profound statement in saying this. He professes his belief that there is much more assurance and comfort to be found in a feared reputation. He does not however, say that it is better to be feared than loved, and I believe that that is very important to note. Rather, Machiavelli states that it is safer to be feared than loved. It seems as if he is encouraging his readers to take the safer route, so as not to be confronted with misfortune or calamity. He is saying that if we are to build a reputation of being feared, we will invulnerable and protected. I believe that there is a certain apprehension or cowardliness to this. On the other hand, this statement could ambiguously suggest that choosing to be loved rather than feared presents a sense of boldness. There is always a great chance that those loved by all will be exploited by those attempting to attain or maintain power. In choosing to be loved, one may be submitting them self to potential adversity. They are allowing themselves to accept the love that they know that they need, regardless of the consequences. In my opinion, desiring to be feared holds a sense of weakness, while desiring love presents a sense of daring.
It seems that every villain depicted in a movie has some sort of craving, and in order to receive what they desire, they choose to create a fearful reputation for themselves. These villains perform a series of evil actions to prove that they are worthy of being feared, and often times, they are successful in doing this. However, when we are shown the stories of their past, we almost always see that there was an absence of love somewhere along the way. Thus, we are presented with the truth that one who fails to obtain love will eventually seek the power to be feared. I believe that without love, one cannot be truly fulfilled.
Another example of the necessity of love over fear can be expressed when dealing with the cooperation between countries of the world. So often, these countries are so thirsty for power. To gain this power, they choose to create a reputation for themselves of being feared. This often causes the less powerful countries (those who are fearful of the countries who hold power) to feel intimidated. As a result, a certain sense of hostility arises between the two countries - developed purely out of fear. The greater country feared the absence of power, while the lesser country feared the potential actions of the greater country. And so, this big cycle of fear arises, until an eventual conflict emerges. And for what? A lack of love? I believe that all of this could be swiftly avoided if everyone were to act with this love, not in an attempt to gain fear or power, but rather to gain lifetime allies. How many conflicts could be avoided this way? In the end, which of these is truly "safer"?
Another example of people who would rather be feared than loved are bullies. Bullies cultivate power by picked on people who cannot hurt them, and take sadistic pleasure in belittling those people. This power stemmed from a similar feeling they endured. Most bullies went through a troublesome time in their lives when someone else bullied or did not love them. They felt helpless and eventually manifested these same qualities to ensure they were not hurt in the same way again. They were only trying to protect themselves. This tactic may seem effective to the bully, but in reality it just further alienates them from receiving love. If they had tried to create love through friendships, they would have protected themselves in a much better way. Friends stand up for each other in tough situations, and this protection lasts much longer than a fearsome reputation. Because friendship is hard to create, most bullies take the safer route and become feared instead. As stated above, it only prevents the misfortune of remaining unloved. This cowardliness is not better for them but is in fact detrimental to their well being. The best thing for them would be to take a risk and use integrity to build a lasting relationship with someone else.
DeleteI think that many times people think that it makes them cool to be feared. They think it gives them unspoken power over others. In reality, does it benefit them at all? They are depriving themselves of the human interaction that could be crucial later in their life. My father often tells the story of when he was in high school and there was a boy that got made fun of continuously. My father was one of the only people that was nice to him. Twenty years later, he owns his own business and the boy that got made fun of gives him an unspeakable amount of business. If you are kind and are loved than you will have more experiences with others. Bullies often think they are cool, but isn't the person who is kind and friends with everyone more well liked?
DeleteI like how you restate the original words and show that he says it is safer to be feared than to be loved. Never does he say it is better. I think it it true that it is safer because then no one with try to walk all over you. The problem with being loved is that a lot of the time this causes you to let your guard down and people end up using you.
DeleteI think your right that Machiavelli believes that there is more assurance in a reputation of fear. I think that powerful countries are more interested in being feared because it establishes them as a world power to be reckoned with. Some see love as weakness, when in fact it usually isn't so. If more people acted with love and genuine care for people, I think the world would be in a better state, as people are doing things with a real conscience. I think that most people with a good conscience are lovers, and that is what gets them their good reputation. Many people can think of fearful leader, fiction or not, that tried to use fear to get what they wanted and were rebelled against. (The fictional "leader", that comes to my mind when thinking about using fear to try to rule and gain control is Voldemort, while the nonfiction leader is Hitler) (;
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's philosophies about leadership seem cunning, harsh, and immoral. His equation for power equals absolute control of a nation, no matter what it takes to retain leadership. At the root of Machiavelli's twisted philosophies is his statement that only the praise or blame of other human beings matters. Viewing the world from this perspective can justify almost anything a person does.
ReplyDeleteIf this reasoning is followed, an action will be taken if it pleases a certain majority of people, and will be avoided if it displeases a certain majority of people. In theory, this principle could work to the benefit of the people. If the majority rules in favor of an action, the action must have some merit to it. If the majority oppose an action, there must be a reason for it. People want to please themselves, and will not favor anything that does not please them. A good example of this mindset is the American government. The people in the House of Representatives either oppose or support certain laws and decisions. These people take their stance based on the beliefs of the people they represent, and what actions would best serve them.
However, this is not the point that Machiavelli is trying to make. He states that a leader must keep up his appearances, seeming good while doing whatever is necessary to retain power. A leader should seem moral, but not be afraid to do immoral acts. This is the other side to his belief that only the opinion of the people matters. If a leader appears good, he can do what he pleases. The people will see him as acting in their best interests, and no one will suspect he is doing otherwise. A bad leader will not be able to do this. Leaders who struggle with their power, doing immoral acts in the public eye, will not be able to do anything but try to improve. Their reputation for evil precedes them, and they must do good deeds to counteract it. There are numerous examples of this principle in American politics. Senators with spotless reputations are found guilty of a crime no one thought they could commit. The people had faith in them, and they were wrong.
There is more to leadership than the praise or blame of the people. Leadership is for the people, not for the leader. Holding on to power for power's sake is wrong, and every leader has his time. American democracy does not allow for one leader to stay in power for an extended period of time, which keeps the leader from abusing his or her power. Their actions hold them in the contempt or favor of the people, and their reputation is founded on the same basis. However, it should not matter whether a leader is feared or loved, as long as their actions are just.
I disagree with Machiavelli on the the most part. In parts when he says a leader must be compassionate, which I agree, then he continues and says while running their army cruelly, which I don't agree. Machiavelli seems very two faced to me. He could be compassionate to others, but then be cruel to others as well. That doesn't seem right to me. Wouldn't you want a leader that would be compassionate towards everyone. I know I would.
ReplyDeleteOne things agree on is that leaders must be generous but spending their money wisely. When I did my local leader interview with Dr. Shirey, he said that if he was independently wealthy he would obviously put the money toward his kids college funds, but then what ever he had left he would donate to the ECC Football Program and to the St. Mary's Wrestling Program as well. I think this is one of the good points Machiavelli makes.
Machiavelli also makes the point it is far safer if the ruler is feared. I don't not agree with his point. Why would someone want to have a leader who everyone is afraid of. That doesn't make much sense to me. As a leader you are a role model to little kids, employees, or a nation. You want people to trust you. For them to trust you you have to be liked, not feared.
I would not want a leader who was cunning toward me. Take for an example the president. You would not want the president to be tricky with you. You would expect him to be tricky with opposing countries though. You would also want him to be cunning in war situations.
Another point of Machiavelli's I agree with is it's all about the game. I agree with this one because a good leader would want to maintain influence. They would want to gain power or influence everyday. This would all have to be on the good side of things rather than the evil side. One would not want a ruler that gets influenced by guns, and war. One would want a leader to stay in control if they are doing their job well.
I do believe that it is safer to be feared, but you are correct when you said that someone who you are afraid of is not a good role model. Trust comes with love. I would never trust someone that I was afraid of. Putting your trust in them could mean a number of scary things. You would never know what they might do to you. Machiavelli wanted his leaders to keep good reputations so they could make bad decisions and still have the people on their sides. This is wrong and could not be trusted. If a leader has his people so wrapped up in their own thoughts that they could make a bad decision without them knowing, they are obviously a terrible leader. Love is the only force that can drive a leader into doing the right things, even if it means losing his position.
DeleteMachiavelli does seem two faced, but one point of his seems to make complete sense no matter how it is viewed. Seeming generous while using money wisely is a one thing that is expected of a great leader. Any leader using money for frivolities is not acting in the best interests of the people. The money is not his own; it comes from taxes and tariffs. The taxes of the people are hard earned, and as such should be well spent. For a leader to waste these funds would result in dissent. The people could even revolt, doing away with their leader because if his or her actions. However, if a leader gives money back to the people, it will solidify their position. Almost everyone likes to receive money, and will support those who give it to them. Thus, giving money while spending it wisely becomes an art attributed with fine leadership.
DeleteI agree with Machevalli's principles despite what everyone else would typically think. even though they are misleading and corruptive, they are the truth, and nothing more than that. If a leader were to be only kind, then what would happen in an instance where the leader would require to be brutal. It is most definitely better to be feared than to be loved. If one were going to a job, one would want their boss to be nice but in the long run, it would be better for future experiences that the leader be feared. In the real world, there are going to be people who one would love, and there are going to be people who one would not like at all. In the job standpoint, an employee would like to have a boss of whom they loved, but that is not going to happen in every instance, so therefore, it would be better to have an employer who is more strict and more "feared" than to have one who would let their employees do anything that they would want to do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your belief Rae Ann. If a leader only focuses on being loved by their employees, how well will the organization run successfully? In my opinion, not very well. The leader should be feared because that shows the power he or she has on the workers within that organization. Now the leader should have a compassionate also. If the leader tries to make everyone afraid of him or her then people eventually may quit. There should a balance. The fear to show dominance, and love to show compassion.
DeleteI like how you compared it to a job standpoint. It puts it in a perspective I did not look at before. It makes sense for a leader at a workplace to be feared so one does the job right. I think what you said about balance makes sense. With having employees fear their boss, they might find the boss intimidating. That is when the boss has to show compassion so they are not terrified of him but afraid of him at times.
DeleteI agree RaeAnne that Machavelli has seen the bad leaders of the world, but he does not know how to truly show his ideas. I feel as though he constantly contradicts himself in his beliefs by saying that a leader should be feared, but also compassionate. I do not see it in a way that it could work in both ways. They are either loved or feared, but never both. I agree that he shows how the leaders of the world at the time were extremely harsh, and he tried to shame them for their faults, but he tried to change them from who they were. You will have bad leaders and good leaders in this world and we have to deal with them all.
DeleteI agree also with you RaeAnn. But I also disagree. I don't believe that it is completely better to be feared. Being loved is important but so is being feared under certain circumstances. If it is a time of seriousness and there is just no room for goofing off, then you would want it to be a tine of fear so people listen. I think in the long run it's better to be loved.
DeleteTo be loved or to be feared, it seems like everyone in the world picks out a preference wether they realize it or not. Machiavelli felt it was better to be feared than loved, but I happen to disagree. Love and fear invite different actions to be done to us throughout our life, but they also change how we act towards others.
ReplyDeleteBuddha said, "Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule." In a way, fear and hatred go hand in hand. Both qualities impede us from seeing the world and people how they really are. This quote from Buddha shows that love is the strongest quality. Anything can be overcome through love. Not being loved would be like being in a narrow hallway with doors running the whole way down, but they would all be locked. If there is an absence of love, we have no one to go to and nowhere to turn to.
As preposterous as this analogy may sound, it makes a lot of sense. A short video called "Teddy Has an Operation" shows a teddy bear undergoing surgery because as the narrator says in the beginning, "There is something wrong with Teddy." Throughout the surgery, it is discovered that "Teddy is riddled with fear." The fear in Teddy depicted with disgusting objects, like repulsive insects. This shows how people view those they fear. When we fear a person we see them as disgusting or frightening, but then the surgeon removes the fear, and puts in beautiful objects, like butterflies and other animals. This can be related to how people see us when we are loved. Love causes us to see the beauty in people no matter what their physical appearance really is. Fear is easily replaced, it is highly conditional, but love is the most unconditional thing we shall ever face.
Many people might claim that love does not last forever and if love was strong relationships would not end, but this is false. Real love does last forever. Love is the most unconditional thing in the whole world, if it is real and true. There is a difference between love and being in love, which is a reason why many relationships end. Relationships are not a failure due to them ending, and that does not mean there is not love there. Love just has to take different forms sometimes. Just because two people cannot be together due to differences, does not mean the person who ended it does not love the other person, in fact in many cases it means they love me more because they are letting that person go find the better they know that person deserves.
Fear and love can be considered complete opposites. Fear makes us do things for people for thr wrong reasons. I want people to do things for me because they want to, not because they are scared of consequences. Machiavelli found the quality of being feared to be better, but if you are not loved, what really do you have to live for? The actions done to us and the intent depend on wether we are feared or loved. You could be feared for succeeding, but inciting fear would be carrying out success wrongly. Being loved means we did the best we could to help each other, which is why we all live on the same land together.
To be feared, or to be loved?
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli believes it is better to be feared, but I disagree and agree with his opinion. Yes, in some ways for people to fear you means you have power and control. Although if one puts their power before others, one may lose those who loved them. Losing those loved ones can cause loneliness and loss of comfort. However, I do not believe that it is better to be loved. If many loved someone, it would be hard for that person to know who is loyal and who is not. The person begins to create an illusion of perfection with in themselves, and nobody is perfect.
I believe that there should be a balance of being feared and loved. I feel as it is impossible for someone to be loved by all, even if it seems as they do. Not everyone suits one another in terms of friendship or on terms of knowing a person. Therefore someone who is loved by many may not be loved by a great many unknown to them. On the other hand, being feared causes separation from others. Fear can show dominance and leadership. In some ways a teacher can have ones who fear them. In some cases a teacher may come across as "scary" to the students. This "scary" teacher causes fear inside the students. If the teacher uses this fear wisely he or she can control the class with more ease, but also if she showed love, there would be respect. The students would know that the teacher is not trying to be mean, but they are going to work the student hard. Of course, just like as in being loved to much, abusing the knowledge of one's fear should not be done. Both overuses cause abuse of either love or fear. There should be a balance of each causing a maintained peace.
Sydney, I do agree with your statement that a balance is needed. I do not agree with your statement, though, that it is better to be loved then feared. I feel that is better to be safe then it is to be lonely. If you are dead, you cannot enjoy your company. The balance is really the way to go. Instead of being totally loved, or totally feared, I believe people should strive to be respected. Respect would allow you to both be feared and loved at the same time.
DeleteI believe that Machiavelli is incorrect about a leader being feared. For my interview, I interviewed my boss Meti Funaki. He knew who Machiavelli is and said that he doesn't agree with all of Machiavellis philosophies. Mr. Funaki has a very good relationship with all of his workers. We as employees, do not fear him in a sense that he can't be trusted. I think that everyone would fear him in some sort of small way because he has the power to fire you from your job. I personally do not really fear him because him and I have a rather close relationship. I trust him and know I can confide in him in needed. He treats everyone with compassion, including his "army". I think that if a leader is feared too much, everyone under that person may try to revolt against the leader. Many people are not who they appear to be, I don't think Machiavelli was who he appeared to be. If he saw you on the street, then he was kind and compassionate. But if you someone who he ruled over, he was cruel to you with no sympathy.
ReplyDeleteTabitha, I agree with your statement that if a leader is feared to much, the followers will revolt against him or her. That is very true. Leaders should have some who fear, but they should also be someone which whom they can trust. If there is not trust within a workplace, the workplace will slowly be diminished to nothing. That is why the needs to be both fear and love to maintain the balance.
DeleteTabitha, I agree with your statement that being feared to much can be a bad thing. As Sydney said above, the workers may revolt against a feared leader. That is obviously not a good thing to happen. So a mix of love and fear is necessary. As I have said in all of my posts, respect is what every leader should try to achieve. A respected leader is usually a successful leader.
DeleteThere are many leaders in this world that actually lack leadership ability. Machavelli pointed to the leaders of their society in time as cheaters and liars and their lack of ability to lead a society. I approve of Machivellian ideas, but not of machivellians. Those types of "leaders" are still around today. They make you trust them and think they are good relatable people, but then they intimidate their followers to the point of pure fear. This makes them believe that they cannot over throw them or feel superior. I know from personal experience how manipulative these types of people are. From this experience I saw a man of with high education try to lead a school, telling people about how he spent his childhood by a farm boy. Now, we saw his ways teaching and how he chose to treat his employees by making them feel extremely less superior than he thought he was.
ReplyDeleteMost of the time, we see Machiavellians as dictators or corrupt politicians, but in the reality of the situation they are among us. None of us, as sixteen/seventeen year olds, know what kind of situations and harsh conditions are in the factories or restaurants. Example, the Chipotle incident in State College where all the workers at the Mexican chain restaurant quit because of the harsh working conditions and unfair treatment of their workers.
Another, less recent example of these kind of conditions being carried out was in the Industrial Revolution, a time when the United States of America changed from an agricultural society to a more modern, city-like society. In this time many leaders, for example John D. Rockefeller who was one of the most successful businessmen to ever live, treated their workers like they were worthless, giving them very little pay and making them work in extremely dangerous environments. This was not just men who were exposed to this situation, there were children, immigrants, and women killed because of poor treatment.
I do not think that it is ever fair treatment to treat a person as though they are less superior than yourself. That does not look bad for them, it really makes the person acting like a God seem horrible. Everybody has their own gift, to use the Machivellian method on them is just a way to boost your own ego. Not every person is the same, and I truly believe that it is unnecessary to hurt a person in that way. My first example is key, you can a have a doctorate in education, but if you have the personality of a tree branch you will not be successful or trusted. It is a matter of being feared or loved, I feel like you make more progress with people if you earn their trust rather than make them fee like they are nothing.
A main point in Machiavelli's writings is that it is better to be feared than loved. On many points, I agree with him. Though this is not always the case. Many times in government it is better to be feared than loved. If you are a well-respected country with a well developed government and a large army, many times they will be feared. I also think that a country should express their strength and dominance from time to time. In doing this, they demonstrate to other countries to not mess around with them. I also think that a country should be allies with others. If a country is only feared, they will not have allies to depend on in times of conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhen the principle of fear and love is used on an individual standpoint, I think that it is better to be loved than feared. If a person is only feared, they will live a very lonely life. Human beings need to have interaction with others. If they are feared constantly, how much human interaction will they get? Love is the very thing that holds this whole world together. Through all the tragedy and horror of everyday life, love is the only thing that reminds us of the good things in this world.
Machiavelli used deception as a tactic to keep his followers under control. This I strongly disagree with. Leaders need to have the quality of honesty. They are not truly a leader if they are not honest. Machiavelli makes many statement where he puts forth the idea that a leader should appear to be doing good deeds while really weakening those beneath them. This has been seen in history many times. Adolf Hitler appeared to be working for the common good of the people. In reality, he was only telling them what they wanted to hear, and doing horrible deeds behind their backs. The same goes for many other fascist leaders during the time of World War II. Even in today's world there are leaders that have completely changed their demeanor since taking office. A good example of this is Vladimir Putin. He appeared to be working for the good of the people when he took office, but this was not the truth behind the scenes.
Leaders should always be forward with their citizens. They need to be able to always tell the truth, even if it involves bad news. Machiavelli stated that leaders need to use deception on the matters of finance, military, and character. It is not fair to citizens to have a leader that is not always upfront with them. Even on a smaller scale of leadership, honesty is always imperative. This does not only imply to governments and countries. It also can be in use with schools, teams, and businesses. If the people involves are working toward the betterment of their government or organization, shouldn't the leader at least be able to tell them the truth?
I completely agree that a leader must be honest. Dishonesty causes world tragedies like the example you used, Hitler. A leader is not a leader for themselves, they are in charge of all their people, sometimes a few, but sometimes millions. They must strive to do good for their people because that is what they are there for. The name on the front of he jersey is way more important than the name on the back. Deception causes conspiracy theories and all of the distrust all around our government that stemmed from a. Few dishonest politicians and leaders. If our leaders were known to be more honest and trustworthy, people would be more likely to back them instead of being inquisitive about their intentions and their true actions in situations.
DeleteIt is far safer to be feared then loved. Machiavelli stated this, and I agree with him. If a king is feared, then his subjects will be more on guard or weary. If they are loved, they will relax. It would not be a very good thing to be relaxed back in those days. The relaxed civilizations were the ones that conquered. The tense civilizations were the ones that did the conquering. It is simple logic then, that a ruler must create a tense environment so that they do not get conquered.
ReplyDeleteA ruler's job is to do the best thing for their empire. The beloved ruler appeals to the citizens and does basically everything they want. This is dangerous though, because citizens think they know what is best for the government. In most cases however, they do not know what is best. A relaxed civilization also does not usually do well in war. They expect peace all the time, but when a war mongering civilization comes rumbling through, they get conquered very easily. So the combination of a dysfunctional government and a weak military leads to their demise.
Tense civilizations are far superior to relaxed civilizations. Leaders rule with an iron fist. They know what they are doing, and they do not let people who do not know what they are doing tell them what they should do. Their military is also usually acceptable and ready for a war. So barbarians and war mongering nations would also just leave them alone, and go right after the relaxed nations.
A modern example of this principle is my father's business. He does not want to be loved at all by his employees. He would rather be feared then loved, but he would much rather be respected. But if his employees love him, production will go down, and unemployment will go up. My father thinks of it as a favor to his employees that he does not let his employees be his friends. He does not want to fire his employees, and let the company fail.
Even through all of this though of this though, a combination of the two may be best. A feared leader may make life hell for the subjects. That is not really great. But a loved leader is worse. So maybe the best word is respect. A respected leader is what every country, organization, or association should strive for.
I disagree. Fear is not the most imperative thing in rule. If there is no love, citizens will conspire to overthrow their rulers, which happened many times throughout history. Just because subjects loved their monarchs, did not make them relax more. In fact, personally, working for somebody I love, especially protecting them, would make me strive to do a better job than if it was somebody I feared and found unlovable. Also when countries are friendly with other countries, they become alliances who form together in case of attack. In fact, JFK saw this. He started the Peace Corps to make third world countries love America to discourage them from turning to communism. If he would have went over with an iron-fist demanding they strike against communism, many more counties probably would have turned to it in defiance.
ReplyDelete