Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Machiavelli's leadership theory
Machiavelli's leadership theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Machiavelli's leadership theory
Machiavelli
Would you rather be feared or loved in a position of authority? According to Machiavelli it is "much safer to be feared than to be loved’. Machiavelli was an Italian historian amongst many other things during the late 15th century. He wrote about political topics which have made their way into current times and are still relatable topics and pieces of advice. The pieces Machiavelli wrote can be considered as very influential works. In specific the topics brought up in the “Qualities of the Prince” can still to this day be translated and interpreted and applied to life today. I agree with Machiavelli that as a person in an authoritative position is more likely to be successful when feared rather than an over accommodating leader
…show more content…
A leader such as the President is a perfect example for a topic such as being feared over being loved. Looking at the Bush administration and the choices that were made during his presidency showed that he chose to be feared rather than to be loved. Being loved required being accommodating and to be feared meant being unilaterally confrontational. Over the course of Bush’s presidency it can be seen that the majority of the time he chose the confrontational route and used his power to keep it that way rather than going out of his way to be accommodating and loved. Neil Kinkopf states “Moreover, the public also rejected the Bush Administration’s view of presidential power by electing Barack Obama. No more fear-based view of presidential power; which is to say, the public has rejected Machiavelli.” Jack Goldsmith who was the head of legal counsel for a year during the Bush Administration states that “even if the war in Iraq had gone well, the President and the President’s approach would have failed because he focused too much on “hard power””. In the instance of Presidency and the Bush administration, Machiavelli is wrong, it is better to be a president that adopts an accommodationist model than a president that is unilaterally …show more content…
It is a parent’s job to raise a child to the best of their ability not to be their friend. As a parent, I can say that I have tried many different approaches to getting my daughter to listen and follow the rules I set. The times when I have attempted to be more accommodating and relaxed about the consequences for her misbehavior, my daughter has taken advantage of them and has failed to learn from her mistakes/misbehavior. When I lay out undesirable, harsh consequences she seems to listen better. I believe that as a parent, it is necessary to be respected as well as feared. If a child doesn’t fear the consequences and the parent the child will get to the point where they walk all over the parent, once this happens, the parent loses the control that is necessary to raise them. When the consequence for misbehavior is a spanking, my daughter is more attentive and tends to follow directions better than when the consequence is something along the lines of losing a toy for an amount of time. Being feared as a parent doesn’t mean that the child should be in constant fear of the parent. The fear factor is needed in order to maintain respect and not cross that
Lao-Tzu recognizes what possible actions will result in, and he confides in the people to make them feel apart of the government, rather than controlled by someone who should serve as example. By letting events transpire without attempting to sway them one way or another, a leader displays their understanding that “the universe is forever of control” (verse 30, p. 26) and the people feel more content in an unadministered world. Moreover, Lao-Tzu explains that in order to govern the people without manipulating them, it is best to let them find their own way without conveying superiority. However, Machiavelli disagrees, and through the enforcement of a cold leadership, a ruler is more inclined to keep his subjects and loyal. He believes that unpredictability will elude enemies and subjects from taking advantage of their leader, and he does so by deceiving the people and going back on his word. Machiavelli writes, “without that reputation he will never keep an army united or prepared for any combat” (46). But, Machiavelli is battle-hungry and prefers to be feared rather than loved. In order to indicate where a leader stands among their subjects, Lao-Tzu leads with an easy-going manner, while Machiavelli denotes vicious behavior—both prove to benefit the kingdom, but by producing
According to text 2 one of Machiavelli's quotes came up about being feared more than loved and the response to that was " A leader must build his relationship with the people upon mutual respect, more than any other thing. It is not fear or
Think of a relationship in life, one where there is a dominant person over a group of people. Is this dominant person more feared or more loved by the general population? Machiavelli states that it is better to be feared than it is to be loved when ruling over a group of people, because one of them is going to outweigh the other no matter what. This does seem to be true, but not to the extreme Machiavelli describes. In modern day, for the United States, there is no ruler or president that has public shaming or public killings, that was deemed unnecessary multiple decades ago.
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.
And as I speak here of mixed bodies, such as republics or religious sects, I
In the many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
While “every sensible prince wishes to be considered, merciful and not cruel”(pg. 35), one should learn to be merciful in moderation. Not doing so can lead to unintended effects where if you are too “good” it can lead to being taken advantage of, or to “uprisings and civil war” because then you will be looked at as a pushover by your citizens and other neighboring countries. Therefore if you were to be cruel, people will fear you enough to, in theory, not go against you and stay united. But I think this concept seems more like a dictatorship, which thrives on citizens fear, and I don’t think it should be instilled in our government considering that most dictatorships end poorly and lead to more uprisings and civil war than with a merciful leader. And this is why the question in this section on whether it is better to be feared or loved also comes up. Machiavelli believes that a prince should find a balance of being both feared and loved and in general just try to escape hatred. If you are loved by your people, rarely will they betray you, but it is also good to be feared by other nations so that you are not looked upon as a target. So in this section of the prince I think the concept of ruling only on fear should not be used, however I do think that a leader should try balance being loved and
Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.
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...
Carina Armas The Examined Life 150 5/10/15 Is Machiavelli a philosopher? Why or why not? In order to determine whether Machiavelli is a philosopher one must ask themselves what is a philosopher? Philosophy is about yearning for wisdom.
I believe it is better to be loved than feared while Machiavelli believes it is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli makes his decision on what quality is best for a Prince. He believes fear is more desired because fear is preserved by a dread of punishment. Meaning those who fear you are reliable, whereas those who love you are only tied by an obligation which is broken at every opportunity meaning those who love you are not reliable. At that time a Prince need loyal and reliable subjects and therefore Machiavelli believed that to be feared was better than to be loved. I believe Machiavelli feels this way because at the time of this piece being feared may have been a more necessary quality to survive and succeed. However, nowadays
and fear to one’s advantage. Rousseau states, “But how to reach men’s hearts? Our present-day
The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, that is brilliantly translated by Harvey C. Mansfield, focuses on advising a prince to base his power mainly through the people since there seems too many of them rather than very few nobles or the great. Machiavelli elaborates on civil principality where a prince is elected with the support of the citizens of the state or the nobles of the state. Whether the prince is elected by the nobles or the people, he will have to maintain himself with great responsibility. When a prince is elected by the nobles, he will have to, “maintain himself with more difficulty than one who becomes prince with the aid of the people”(Machiavelli 39), according to Machiavelli, this is because the number of nobles is very few compared to the number of people. The difference between the people and the nobles states that at times of difficulty the prince will have more support from the many, also known as the people, rather than the few, who are known as the nobles.
The quote, derived from Machiavelli’s thoughts; “it is better to be feared than loved,” is supported by Beowulf in Beowulf and by Hrothgar in Grendel through their actions. Leaders have many choices to make; one of the most important choices is to decide if he prefers to be loved or feared by his followers. The main purpose of being a leader is to lead your followers into victory, rule your subjects and have a prosperous kingdom. So the question appears; is it better to be loved or feared.
During the time 1469, a child by the name of Niccolo Di Bernardo Del Machiavelli was born .Some may know him as an Italian philosopher, humanist, or a evil minded fellow associated with the corruptness of totalitarian government. In Machiavelli’s home state Florence, he introduces the modern political theory. Hoping to gain influence with the ruling Medici family Niccolo wrote a pamphlet call The Prince (Prezzolini).