In the initial analysis performed within the analytical matrix, one commonalty emerged within the leadership views that centered upon the greatness of the individual in charge. This source of charisma varied in its delivery method, source of power, and political disposition. In contradiction to this underlying similarity, the nature of each view has specific characteristics that are intuitive to the leader’s environment and sociological condition. Although this practice of leadership changes considerably over time specifically to each environment, the need for leaders and the demand for leadership has been an ongoing challenge for all of society.
Stability
In heroism, the primary source of power comes from the great acts of the leader or their subordinate’s duty to follow the wishes of their ruler. In this view, the follower’s compulsion comes through force or the social policies made to uphold the will of the ruler. This exchange can easily foster resentment that will lead to instability if the leader loses support or is defeated. This view would only viable in certain environments such a militaristic society or despotism because the subordinates would have to be controlled by economic or social mechanisms.
In the Machiavellian discipline of the princes keeping the faith, power is upheld through social and political maneuvering. This ability to control with deception and guile provides the leader with an alternative to force. In comparison to heroism, having an additional method to maintain power and control public opinion would be an improvement to the methods employed by sovereigns. Niccolò Machiavelli (1515) sates that it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation, which owin...
... middle of paper ...
...e, and self-confidence as compared with non-leaders. These traits combined with the ability to understand the motivational factors of your environment provide leaders with the greatest chance for success.
Works Cited
Fleenor, J. (2007). Trait approach to leadership. In S. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. (pp. 831-833). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952651.n319
Machiavelli, Nicolo (1515).Concerning the way in which princes should keep faith. Chapter XVIII. The Prince. Translated by W. K. Marriott 1908. Retrieved online from http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm
Lao Tzu (1999). Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching Translation Based on His Taoism. Lee Sun Chen Org. iUniverse. Retrieved online from http://books.google.com/books?id=ktJmCQPTajQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
The bravery and strength of the lion will not be enough to empower the ruler to escape the snares set by his enemies for and the slyness of the fox is also needed. “The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.” (The Prince) It is not possible for the citizens to love and fear a prince, but being feared is much safer than being loved.“Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved” (The Prince) Everything a prince says must be filled with these five qualities: being merciful,being trustworthy, religious,kind, honest. Machiavelli defines virtues as qualities that are praised by others, such as generosity, compassion, and piety. He argues that a prince should always try to appear virtuous, but it is more important for the prince to be practical than it is for him to be morally good. The government that is built of this foundation it
Throughout The Prince and The Discourses of Livy, Niccolo Machiavelli demonstrates multiple theories and advocacies as to why popular rule is important to the success of a state. Popular rule is a term that will be used to define an indirect way to govern the people of a state. In order to rule the masses, a leader must please the people or revolts will occur, causing mayhem and a lack of stability in one’s state. During both written works, Machiavelli stresses the importance of obedience and order needed for a state, and especially for a leader to be successful. Machiavelli thoroughly states that anything and everything must be done to keep the peace of the masses, even if acts of immorality are used. However, instead of advocating immorality, Machiavelli is saying that to serve the people and the state well, a ruler must not restrict himself to conventional standards of morality. His use of immoral tactics in leadership would appear to be unpopular; however the acts of immorality have limitations and are done solely to avoid displeasing the masses or creating disorder. Therefore it is acceptable to practice immorality if it is done only to a small number of constituents, if it is not repeated, and if it is performed to please and benefit the public. It is these limitations that prove Machiavelli is arguing that the use of immoral tactics, to rule the people and in turn be ruled by the people, is needed. He suggests that if the majority of the population is unhappy with a leader, that particular leader’s rule would be in jeopardy, thus falling victim to popular rule.
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
Many empirical things can often still be debated and refuted by experts, but there is a general admittance to the idea that power is the root of many evil things. In all fairness, we must admit that a many evil things can in their essence, be great. And that is one of the many theories advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli in his well-known work, The Prince. The Prince serves a dual purpose of both teaching a person how to attain power, but also how to retain it. Incredibly enough, history has proven most of Machiavelli’s findings and theories to work well, while some have failed to effectively secure power for the rulers who did, in fact try them. His work, does obviously highlight one main fact, which is, that power is a well sought-after attribute, and most who attain are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep it.
Throughout history, it can be argued that at the core of the majority of successful societies has stood an effective allocation of leadership. Accordingly, in their respective works “The Tao-te Ching” and “The Prince”, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of this relationship. The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed manifests itself within both texts, however, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions. Lao-Tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course and allowing good to prevail. On the contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his endeavors, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power, at any cost. Since these thinkers both make an inquiry to what is essentially the same dilemma of effective leadership, it becomes almost a natural progression to juxtapose the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. In this sense, when we utilize the rhetorical strategy of compare/contrast as a vehicle to transport us to a more enlightened interpretation of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s conclusions, it becomes apparent that Machiavelli’s effort is much more successful as his practicality serves its purpose much more effectively.
Machiavelli, Nicolo (1532) The Prince. In Peter Bondanella’s and Mark Musa’s (eds) The Portable Machiavelli. (pp. 77-166) New York, New York: Penguin Books.
Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.
The leadership is a result of a combination of traits, with special emphasis on the personal qualities of the leader, which he should possess certain personality traits that would be special facilitators in leadership performance. This theory shows that leaders are born as such, there is no likelihood of 'making' them later with personal development techniques.
Machiavelli, N., 1988, The Prince, Q. Skinner and R. Price (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
As Yukl (2010) indicates, such factors (e.g. personality, values and capacities) attributed to a leader. Normally it is widespread acknowledged that someone is born to be a lead...
After understanding the theory behind both the trait and skill approach, I was eager to evaluate and reflect on my own leadership traits. It was interesting to see how the trait approach allowed me to better understand whether or not I have certain traits considered to be important for leadership, while skills approach allowed me to evaluate my strengths and weaknesses in the technical, human and conceptual skills. From completing the Leadership Trait Questionnaire (LTQ) and the Skills Inventory, I was able to reflect more on how I behave towards others in a leadership context, as well as the skills that I currently possess. As a naturally extroverted person, I have been taking on leadership roles from a young age. The findings from these two
Strauss, Leo. Machiavelli’s Intention: The Prince . Ed. Leo Strauss. N.p., 1958. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. .