What does it mean to be a leader? Leadership is a way in which a person can influences others to accomplish an objective. Leaders do this by applying their leadership qualities, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skill. Two really good leaders with their own way of thinking how a country should be ran. Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli both have the ability to run a good country. They have a lot of similarities but they also have a lot of differences that set them apart from each other. Our country needs someone who is loyal to the people and trusts them. A President is a leader and is someone who others will trust and rely on to make the right choices and decisions for his country. The American people should have a good relationship with the leader. I feel that Lao-Tzu would fit as a better President than Machiavelli because he puts his trust into the people and do what is best for them.
Lao-Tzu wants a good relationship with the people. A leader should be loved and not feared. Machiavelli thinks that it is best that the leader have fear over the people. Machiavelli says, “I reply that one should like to be both one and the other, but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than loved when one of the two must be lacking.” (Machiavelli 44). If you rule in fear, people will not respect you nor will they like you. The people are just doing what the leader wants because they fear the consequences of not doing it. If I was in a relationship with my boyfriend, I would want to have a good relationship with him. If my boyfriend abuses me and threatens to hurt me if I ever leave him, of course I would listen to him and do what he says. I do not want to get hurt. I don’t want my boyfriend to physically abuse me or mentally abuses me in any way, so I would listen to him. He put that fear into my mind so I would do as he says. If someone told me if I left my boyfriend and they are sure that no harm will come my way, I would definitely leave him. I do not want to be around or associated with some who abuses me. I rather be with someone that I respect and have a good relationship with.
Lao-Tzu believes in love and trust for the leader whereas Machiavelli strongly believes in fear from the leader. These views are almost complete opposites when paying attention to basics but the more you pay attention there are some similarities to be found, the main one being that they both believe that if the leader is hated then they government will struggle and possibly even fail. These views are almost complete opposites when paying attention to basics but the more you pay attention there are some similarities to be found, the main one being that they both believe that if the leader is hated then they government will struggle and possibly even fail. Another thing that you would be able to compare is that they both genuinely wanted what was best for their people under rule even though their views were complete opposites. Machiavelli said, “It is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking,” written in Machiavelli 's Ironic View of History by Salvatore. As far as their views contrast though, it was a very clear and direct that the way they looked at the government was nothing alike. You have one that believes that the only way to rule is to be loved then on the other had you have someone saying that the best kind of ruler is one that is feared, and that being loved isn 't relevant in this case. Lao-Tzu views this way of the government because he feels that if the people are on his side about things, than always fighting against him. Machiavelli though, is more intense on the idea of decision making and thinks that a ruler has to be ruthless no matter what the case, and is willing to make the best decision even if it isn 't the popular
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” (BAM, 2010, p.20) These words were first written down over 2,400 years ago by a Chinese general named Sun Tzu in his famous military strategy treatise known today as The Art of War. These words, in fact the entire book, are just as valid today as they were during Sun Tzu’s lifetime. He was one of the first truly visionary and ethical military leaders in the world. Despite the fact that there is not much known about Sun Tzu today other than his writings, in this essay, I intend to extract his essence from his treatise to prove he was a visionary leader. I will then continue to prove he was also an ethical leader. Finally, I will finish by detailing how his seminal work has inspired me to self-reflect on how I can be a better visionary and ethical leader in the 21st Century Air Force. So, what exactly is a ‘visionary’ leader?
Throughout the centuries, this world has maintained various leaders that have ruled far and wide, or a small domain. All of which had various roles, morals, goals, etc.; some infamous, some admired, and some truly despised. There is a vast amount of written works pertaining to become a great leader. Lao-Tzu and Niccoló Machiavelli are prime examples of people who have written works about the topic, yet their views and ideas differ greatly. Yet, despite their opposite views, their intake and thoughts about leadership, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s indulge logically and carefully on a more personal and human level.
roctor: Today, we welcome the top three candidates for President of the United States of America. Lao Tzu is a part of the Independent Party and the National Tao Convention. He asserts that he is neither conservative nor liberal, rather falls in between. He believes in the proper balance of power and impotence. Next, the candidate for the extreme right wing will be Odysseus. Odysseus is a firm believer in war, power, and selfishness. He holds his titles dear to his heart and wants the people to vote for him because he is Odysseus, King of Ithaca, Son of Laertes. Lastly, the moderate Left wing candidate is Governor Batau. He strongly believes in karma and will only act violently toward those who have acted violently first. He is fair to all
Machiavelli is accurate when he states that it is better to choose being feared over being loved. As a leader you must be willing to do what it takes to gain political success. Show authority and have your followers respect you, not only as a person, but also in
China endured a turbulent period throughout the 20th century as massive transformations took place, most notably, those lead by Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. Mao led the foundation of communism in China, establishing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, and established himself as the figurehead of China until his death in 1976. Mao inspired people with his unwavering idealism and revolutionary spirit. His ideas of an ideal egalitarian society shaped his policies and decisions. He and his administration used his influence to spearhead various movements, including the Great Leap Forward, in which he aimed to quickly industrialize China, the Hundred Flowers Campaign, which encouraged people to publicly express their views,
Machiavelli was a man who was not worried about what was morally correct, but rather, what was politically deserved. He was in fact an honest and religious man, but he has become known for trickery and double-dealing. He thought that princes would have to start tricking his enemies, or even his people for the good of his state. In my opinion, his theory, “It is better to be feared than loved” is saying that when the people fear their ruler, the ruler will most likely get what he wants. When a ruler has control and intimidation over his people, they will most likely do what he says and follow his rules, out of fear. Some people might argue and say that if a ruler is loved than people will respect him and follow his rules. This is true, except, it is harder to get people to love and respect their ruler so much as to do everything they are told, than it is to get them to fear their ruler.
A leader is described as a person who guides others and has authority and influence over others. They work to influence others into meeting certain goals. There is no right or wrong definition of a leader and there is no recipe that ensures effective leadership. Successful leaders have a good balance of vision, influence, and power. Leaders gain their authority from their ability to influence others to get the work done; because of this, anyone has the potential to be a leader. (Finkelman. 2012, p15)
Tao-te Ching (in English pronounced “dow deh jing”) is believed to be written by Lao-tzu (6th century B.C). However, it is not for certain that he wrote the book. Lao-tzu is translated as “Old Master”. He was born in the state of Ch’u in China. It’s been said that he worked in the court of the Chou dynasty. The day that he was leaving the court to start his own life, the keeper of the gate urged him to write his thoughts as a book. Lao-tzu’s work mostly illustrates Taoism –a religion founded by Chang Tao-ling A.D. 150. His main purpose in this piece is practicing peace, simplicity, naturalness, and humility. Lao-tzu believes that people are overloaded with temporal objects in this world. He recommends his readers to let go of everything and always keep the balance in anything. In my opinion, Lao-tzu would more likely dislike our government and the way that people live nowadays. The reason is because majority of the people are attached to secular things. To paraphrase the famous, people have materialistic characteristics in today’s world which is completely against Lao-tzu’s view.
author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te Ching, and not as chaotic as Machiavelli illustrated in Prince.
Leadership is all about having the right amount of heart and determination to help make a difference in someone’s life. It takes certain qualities to be considered a good leader. A leader should want to help inspire others to make a change and to be the best that they can be. A true leader does not need to feel powerful, instead they empower those around them. Throughout my life I have come across various leaders who have made an impact on my life. It takes a very special person to inspire and touch people’s lives. Leadership is so much deeper than having power and bossing people around.
Although they share some similarities in ideology, these parallels are greatly overshadowed by the concepts in which Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli diverge. Their primary distinction lies within their view of human nature and it’s role in governing. Lao-Tzu maintains that if we promote a system of governing to the least possible extent, then human nature should manifest a favorable temperance and dictate the direction of society. In fact, Lao-Tzu asserts numerous attempts to illustrate his point that if leaders, “Stop Trying to control” (§ 57, 35), then there is no desire (§ 37, 24), he dwells in reality (§ 38, 29), and “the world will govern itself.” (§ 57, 35) Although this is an extremely optimistic and beneficial ideal, the main problem with Lao-Tzu’s entire philosophy is exactly that, it can only be viewed as a philosophy. Because it appears under the section entitled “Government,” I...
Leadership is the action of leading a group of people or an organization. In this day and age we as a world need more leaders. Leaders can be innovators, entrepreneurs, workers, and just normal everyday people. A leader doesn 't have to be the president of an organization, but has to have the ability to motivate and lead people to be their best selves. Leaders always have great qualities and they love helping those in need.
According to Niccolo Machiavelli “if you have to make a choice, to be feared is much safer than to be loved” (225). Machiavelli was the first philosopher of the Renaissance, and wrote The Prince which argued that leaders must do anything necessary to hold on to power. The main reason it is better to be feared is because men are evil, rotten and will only do things that benefit themselves. Men only think of themselves and it is for this reason fear can control them and keep them loyal to a leader. Since loyalty through love can be easily broken because it involves no punishment, loyalty through fear is the better choice because it involves the “dread of punishment, from which [the subjects] can never escape” (Machiavelli 226). Machiavelli goes on to say that the great leader Hannibal took control of his immense army, because the soldiers saw Hannibal as a fearsome and cruel person, thus, making them loyal to him. Machiavelli in addition gives an example of a leader who chose not to be feared and cruel: “Scipio, an outstanding man not only among those of his own time, but in all recorded history; yet his armies revolted in Spain, for no other reason than his excessive leniency in allowing his soldiers more freedom than military discipline permits”(226). Failure to be cruel and fearsome will cause a leader to lose control of his soldiers, and it will cause the leader’s soldiers to revolt. Hannibal was the better leader; even though he was cruel, he was more merciful in reality than Scipio because he did not allow any disorders to happen.
In my opinion, being a good leader firstly he should be able to take full advantage of favorable circumstance, able to rule the country under a chaotic situation. Besides he made attractive promises to gain popular support, skilled in using of propaganda, amoral. Moreover he should have the organizational ability and has the ambition to make his country powerful in the world. In addition, he could use his words to twist and manipulate the minds of people into believing that what he was saying. Using this power, he could get people to do anything for him, which prove his amorality. He should be skillful in carry out successful policy to bring the country to economic prospect, since economy is very important to a country.