Is It Better to be Loved or Feared?
Name
Institution
Is It Better to be Loved or Feared?
Five hundred years ago, the question of love versus fear in leadership was what Machiavelli tried to answer in his book, The Prince. To date, managers still cannot find the best strategy between the two. Love and fear are among the most basic and powerful emotions known to man that can inspire extreme reactions and behaviors that are always opposite to each other (Altruists International, 2010). Bruce (2012) points out that when love chooses, fear avoids; when love trusts, fear suspects; when love allows and gives, fear dictates and resists; when love begins fear incites among some of the differences between the two emotions. In his discussion, (Solomon, 2004) points out that in many scenarios; emotions are ignored when evaluating leadership. They are deemed subjective and hard to control or measure. He adds that emotions are crucial entities of ethical leadership, rather than obeying laid down rules and rational thinking. When analyzing leaders, Amy, Kohut and Neffinger (2013) argue that employees normally look at these two characteristics, how lovable or fearsome they are. These two analyses inform employees of the intentions of each manager towards them, and their capacity to act on these intentions.
Since time immemorial, leaders have been adhering to Machiavelli’s statement that it is better to be feared than loved as a leader. In the fifties and sixties, Snook (2008) points out that corporal punishment was common place in schools and organizations were largely hierarchical with conformity to rules being upheld. In the seventies however, organizations began progressing on the culture of loyalty between the employer and the employee, that went both ways (James, 2014). The eighties came with globalization and capitalism, which was coupled by massive retrenchment and downsizing, outsourcing, minimization of costs for profitability and acute competition; this changed the culture of leaders caring about employee welfare. (James, 2014) continues that managers focused on reducing costs and downsizing, while using the threat of future downsizing to keep employees alert and focused on their duties. This has remained to be the trend to date (James, 2014). Snook (2008) points out that this might be the case because most people prefer a comfort zone of relying on how things are done, some are proud that they adhere to rules and just meet targets, while some believe that they will advance when associated with a stern leader who pushes them to work beyond their limits.
Machiavelli(1515) suggests that good leaders should aim at being pleasant and not cruel; though they should not be too gentle. They should maintain a balance between liberalism and meanness (NG, 2010). Machiavelli adds that they should not mind the effect of being cruel, as they would not rather let disorders occur given that new projects bring about more dangers. On this note, Machiavelli (1515) recommends that such a leader should be slow to act, not show fear and proceed with self-control, prudence and humanity. Machiavelli believed that love is stronger than fear, but not entirely because some level of fear is necessary; recommending a proportion of 95% love and 5% fear for successful leadership (Marshall, 2011). It is to note that Machiavelli’s book was written in an age of cruelty and corruption, but still applies in leadership today. When asked on whether to kill a wrongdoer or to spare his life, Machiavelli was of the opinion that the offender should be killed because his death will be easily forgotten than forgetting the evil and this will serve as an example to the rest (NG, 2010). He suggests that loving followers can abandon the leader in tough times. Machiavelli continues that even though men should live by law, often it becomes necessary for the leader to exert force in leadership because men have a dual nature. Machiavelli advices that a good leader should be able to take advantage of either nature of his followers by being crafty like a fox to discover secrets and fearsome like a lion to terrify evil doers Machiavelli (1515) adding that the wise leaders only rely on what they can control and not what other people can control (BR, 2015). Machiavelli adds that faith and trust should be maintained in subjects only when it is beneficial, otherwise, they should be gotten rid of.
Machiavelli (1515) adds that in cases where a leader is forced to put an offender to death, he has to do so with reasonable cause and justification because reasons for killing someone are few and with time forgotten. This applies to today’s retrenchment and firing of employees. He added that a leader should, given that love depends on his subjects, while fear depends on himself; strive to change what he can control, to his benefit, which is the fear that he instills in his subjects (Machiavelli, 1515).
BR (2015) also supports that leaders should be cruel rather than kind, because cruelty serves as a better and more powerful weapon than kindness. Machiavelli in his book, The Prince, points out that a leader who brings peace and stability to his organization or country by being ruthless, should be considered as kinder than a leader who, through his misplaced kindness, creates destruction and war (Machiavelli, 1515). He adds that a good leader must be ready to take cruel measures for the good of all, when required to; as such cruelty often affects just a few subjects. (Machiavelli, 1515) warns leaders that in the bid to lead through cruel means, they should avoid creating hatred in their followers by not infringing on their rights and possessions.
(Addison, 2012) discusses that Machiavelli recommended a balance between the two, but since this is not possible in one being, Machiavelli suggested that it is much safer to be feared. As (Marshall, 2011) discusses, Machiavelli believed that it is better to be feared than loved because love can easily be lost, it is fickle and is based internally. Fear on the other hand, is external and much more predictable as long as the basic character remains constant. Marshall (2011) adds that Machiavelli continued that it is great to be held in love, respect and high esteem; but when it comes to accountability on wrong doing, people should understand that they will undergo misery; as this will keep destruction and betrayals in check.
Shaw (2010) points out that Machiavelli advised that men are greedy and ungrateful, a leader cannot rely on their words alone; they offer a leader loyalty as long as it is to their own gain, but when trouble hits they revolt and cannot be depended upon anymore. Machiavelli added that men are inclined to offend a leader who aims at being loved than one who instills fear in his followers; because love depends on obligation which can be broken; while fear holds due to the understanding of impending punishment that cannot be forgotten (Shaw, 2010). Addison (2012) points out that Machiavelli believed in ruling with an iron fist; but questions if an environment of fear is really necessary today. In some environments and teams, Addison ( 2012) believes it can, like the military, where the environment is structured and the leader really needs to dictate while issuing orders for things to be done as they should be. Snook (2008) gives leading employees in a nuclear power plant as an example of circumstances when fear and sternness are mandatory, as stakes for safety and procedure adherence are very high. However, in customer based environments, this might not apply; stating that there are more benefits in allowing people the freedom and responsibility to be initiative and creative (Addison, 2012). He continues to point out that people need to feel trusted and respected.
Ringelmann (2014) is of the same opinion: that love is better than fear in leadership because it represents trust, inspiration and respect. People are more productive for leaders they respect, emulate those they trust and prefer to be inspired to achieve their work goals. This motivates them making them more productive and creative in how they achieve their goals. She adds that happiness and productivity are codependent.
(Addison, 2012) adds that people will not achieve their real capability in a fearful environment, rather they will be afraid to make mistakes and not take necessary risks that could eventually benefit the organization. Not to say that Machiavelli was wrong, but as (Addison, 2012) says, Machiavelli’s principals apply to regimes where investing in the love from the subjects was not viable and power had to be seized and retained. For instance, Hannibal and Genghis Khan were military commanders who were famous for their cruelty, yet they were highly respected and their followers very loyal (Machiavelli, 1515). Machiavell (1515) gives an example of a Spanish captain named Scipio whose army rose against him for the simple reason that he allowed them too much freedom and leniency than was expected for military leadership.
Amy , Kohut and Neffinger (2013) point out that most managers focus on their strengths and credentials at the workplace, showing off how competent they are in their positions. However, this is not a good strategy, as strength creates fear if trust has not yet been built. This eventually limits cognitive potential, problem solving and creativity. Amy , Kohut and Neffinger (2013) propose that warmth should be focused on before trying to influence. It creates trust, communication and understanding showing employees that a connection exists where they are heard and their concerns are being understood (Amy , Kohut and Neffinger, 2013). (Melnick, 2013) is of the same opinion; it is necessary to cultivate trust in employees as this not enhances things getting done, but also ensures that employees adopt the company mission, values and culture. He agrees with Amy , Kohut and Neffinger (2013) that without trust, employees build a culture of everyone for themselves aiming at protecting their own interests rather than focusing on company goals.
States that good people are considerate, but not strong adding that people always expect more generosity once the leader starts giving. Otherwise, people will view the leader as indifferent and as a tyrant. (Machiavelli N. , 1515) says that for new leaders to make changes in the society he has to make decisions that in a way or another will offend some of their followers. He was critical of leaders who abused their power by being too cruel as mistreatment of masses does not earn them loyalty and obedience, which are necessary for effective leadership.
Kamensky (2013) notes that the style used for management by leaders matters a lot; he proposes that from numerous recent research, the way to influence masses and to lead them is to begin with warmth. He adds that 90% of the positive or negative impressions that people create about others are based on warmth and strength. By putting strength and competence first, leaders undermine leadership (Kamensky, 2013). (LaFata, 2013) points out that managers do not want to seem stern and distant that employees avoid approaching them while at the same time they do not want to be too cozy and close to their employees that they cannot take them seriously or it gets uncomfortable to issue some orders. Therefore, as (LaFata, 2013) advocates, a manager who can achieve a balance between being liked and being serious can be build ideal relationships at work. Managers who have too much fun with their employees might face trouble having respect from them, while managers who cannot have fun because they deem themselves as too high up in the ladder are taking the wrong approach to leadership. There should be a balance between the two (LaFata, 2013). Amy , Kohut and Neffinger (2013) agrees saying that warmth is the highest contributor to peoples judgment on a leader, before competence and fear; adding that people quickly pick on warmth rather than competence. Yet most managers strive to show off their competence.
Amy , Kohut and Neffinger (2013) continues to argue that people tend to invest more on leaders they trust, even at first sight. When employees are trusted to conduct their duties, leaders duties of planning, organization and execution is made easier because trust creates sharing, cooperation and openness while enhancing communication and the ability to influence peoples ideas. A manager should therefore try to achieve a balance between the two, even though Machiavelli opined that this was not possible.
According to a study done by (Amy J.C., Kohut C. M. and Neffinger J., 2013) on 100 people showed that great leaders have a unique physiological characteristic: lower levels of cortisol that deals with stress, with huge levels of testosterone that deals with courage and competitive desires. Such leaders are not troubled by troubles, while not letting tough situations get them down. They look relaxed emotionally even in rough circumstances and can stand uncertainty. (Amy J.C., Kohut C. M. and Neffinger J., 2013) termed them as happy warriors. They are the types of leaders that people trust and follow.
(Shaw, 2010) is of the opinion that love has its advantages; people go an extra mile for leaders who they trust. He advises that leaders should aim at gaining trust from their followers because Machiavelli advised that the attitude and behavior of a leader, whether good or bad eventually trickles down to impact on the whole organization. Amy , Kohut and Neffinger (2013) opine that before people decide on what a leader is saying, they decide on what they think of about the leader. Leaders should aspire to emit self confidence when addressing their followers. Judgments are normally made very fast, often with non verbal signals. Leaders should often maintain a rehearsal routine whereby they prepare their mind and practice the attitude that will best suit the situation at hand, to project positive non verbal cues. Amy , Kohut and Neffinger (2013) termed this approach as inside out, which was preferable than outside in whereby the leader tried to react to situations at the moment while trying to control their non verbal signals.
Melnick (2013) proposes ways of maintaining warmth without seeming phony. He suggests that leaders should really mean it when caring about their employees’ wellbeing because authenticity is essential; otherwise they will sense it. He adds that leaders should avoid raising their voices as a sign of warmth, rather they should remain calm and speak with a lower volume and pitch as used when consoling a friend. He adds that leaders should aim at validating their feelings, by showing their followers that they agree with their point of view, by finding a common ground. Employees will view that such a leader has empathy towards them and common sense. He points out that leaders should focus on non verbal signals like smiling that portrays authenticity in their meaning. Amy , Kohut and Neffinger (2013) are of the same opinion as Melnick (2013), of maintaining warmth that will not make the leader seem wooden or like faking it. James (2014) adds that on top of these strategies to gain love, leaders should pay living wages that are fair, give good employee benefits like Christmas bonuses and education packages for kids, value employee welfare as much as profit motives and offer opportunities for career growth and advancement. (Loizides, 2014) adds to the list that to gain love, leaders must stop focusing on themselves rather focus on the followers.
Amy , Kohut and Neffinger (2013) adds that given that leaders need to balance between being loved and being feared, it is important to look at ways of maintaining fear. Leaders need to feel in command, by being self confident and believing that they belong in and own their positions; advising that self doubt is common but it undermines the leaders’ power. Leaders should get a grip on their bodily movements, as unconscious movements like twitching show lack of confidence. Additionally, leaders should have a good posture by standing tall as this projects authority.
James (2014) points out that conventional leaders normally aim at ruthless measures like cutting back on costs, downsizing, cutting down employee benefits and closing down branches that do not meet set goals. Investors want targets to be achieved, and managers can go to whatever lengths to ensure this. They resolve to cruel measures that make employees fear them. According to investors, the ideal management style is to prefer being feared than being loved. However, this might not apply anymore. James (2014) points out that investors might be better served if they allow a management strategy that inspires loyalty rather than fear. A recent study on the performance of American companies revealed that companies listed in the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America” outperformed those that adopted Machiavelli strategies to leadership in the stock market. James (2014) concludes that in business today, a manager is better of liked than dreaded.
Cremer (2012) supports the notion that being loved is the better strategy than cruelty because love creates the willingness to exceed targets set out while creating loyalty that is shared amongst the employees creating team spirit. Hatred on the other hand creates short term performance which highly relies on coercion that ultimately creates contempt for the leader, loss of trust and lowers performance (Cremer, 2012). Love is much easier to garner than fear because new ways of instilling dread in subjects have to be created (Cremer, 2012).
Michael Maccoby, Jody and Michael Ledeen (2004) advance that for successful leadership a leader should be able to inspire emotions in his followers so as to pursued them to perform better. They propose that in current years, trying to control and command employees is futile and dead, proposing that instead, they should be accorded freedom and empowered to work on their own. They add that employees are not subjects, rather they are part of a team and work together like a family. Yet, managers still managers need to instill fear in their employees, but not of the old fashioned layoffs, but of a performance analysis that depicts that poor performance will not be condoned for long. In an analysis to determine whether Michiavelli’s notion towards leadership with an iron fist still applies and is effective today; the experts found out that employees just want clear rules set out on what is expected, honesty from the employer and trust that runs both ways that they will do their best and meet their targets. If they sense that there is fairness in how they are treated, they focus on performance first than focusing on their emotions of love vs. fear; otherwise they fail to respond to either emotions (Michael Maccoby, Jody Hoffer Gittel and Michael Ledeen, 2004).
Loizides (2014) points out that in the career of anyone today, it reaches a point where there has to be a decision on which leadership style is to be adopted, either being lovable or dreaded; but adds that thankfully, there is ample research that has been done to help with this, unlike earlier periods. She concurs with (Amy J.C., Kohut C. M. and Neffinger J., 2013) in stating that the way people perceive a leaders level of warmth affects how they react to the leader emotionally that impacts on their capability to lead and influence. (Loizides, 2014) puts that a leader has to find a balance, that contains warmth in it.
(Loizides, 2014) continues that the current trend is the stronger the better, but if leaders needs to establish power, softening their strengths and tapping into their warmer side is the wise idea. (Brokaw, 2012) points out that leaders need to understand that they cannot control everything otherwise erratic and irrational management styles will emerge, in a bid to maintain purpose vs. the ability to maneuver the fast changing environment that organizations and governments face. She points out that management schools should have a mandate to train would be managers on the need to strike a balance between rationality and sensitivity (Brokaw, 2012).
With today’s companies being forward thinking and technology savvy, they are often in a battle for the best talent whereby top employees have a variety of employment opportunities to pick from (Reffkin, 2014). Companies are left with ensuring they retain the best, which can be achieved through constant motivation and inspiration of their employees. Reffkin (2014) observes that instilling fear cannot be a good motivator. Managers can only look for ways to motivate their employees; that involves retraining programs, maintaining good working conditions, having an accessible management team with an open door policy and creating mutual respect that will create love in employees for what they do. Hopkins (2012) opposes Machiavelli’s opinion that leadership by cruelty is the right style to lead; stating that leading by love is a more effective and moral way to manage followers and employees.
Anlacan (2011) states that managers often have inclinations on how they want to manage their employees; with advocates for both sides being apparent. However, good leadership entails combining the two. The advantages of leading by fear include: it garners respect especially when a leader is promoted into leadership from a group of colleagues and it ensures procedures are followed and things are done, especially when motivation alone does not work. Its disadvantages include: it might sire hatred, it might chase away talented employees, it might limit initiative in employees and terrorizing followers may end up in the leader needing their help which they will withdraw (Anlacan, 2011).
The benefits of a leader wanting to be loved from the followers include: it is enjoyable and feels good, the leader can collect useful information due to trust from employees and employees are highly motivated to be creative. On the other hand being loved hinders good leadership by: principles and laid down policies may be ignored by employees, overheads pertaining to making employees happy like bonuses and compensations may increase exponentially crippling the business and the leader might end up being too much involved in the personal lives of employees who in turn will expect considerations like financial help when times get tough (Anlacan, 2011).
When considering whether a political leader should aim at being loved vs. being fesred, (Alesu-Dordzi, 2015 ) points out that a leader should rather focus on getting things done, why he got elected. However, even though most individuals who were involved in a survey were of the opinion that the government is better off governed through fear like in the military; modern democracy limits this concept. As Alesu-Dordzi (2015 ) advances, politicians should always put in mind that people never vote for someone they fear, a fifty percent plus one majority vote means that more than half of the citizens love the leader. A loved leader garners votes much easily than his opponent. Alesu-Dordzi (2015 ) adds that a leader who got elected out of love from the voters, will always aim at maintaining the love, and will never forget the channel that provided power which is the people. However as Machiavelli N. (1515) puts, there is no guarantee that love acquired by the things that the followers gain from it does not last nor result in anything. Political love is often acquired through potential benefits to be gained or even the perks offered during campaigns (Alesu-Dordzi, 2015 ). This is the reason why Alesu-Dordzi (2015 ) concludes that focusing on emotions to gain political mileage is futile. A successful leader is one who, without focusing on being a politician, understands the problems that the country or state faces and does his best to better the condition (Alesu-Dordzi, 2015 ).
Connell (2008) points out that the decision to lead through fear is still preferred by managers today, despite the change, growth and innovation that has changed the world we live in. fear causes irrational behavior, cripples organization and leads to stupid decisions among followers. In his book Love Leadership, (Bryant, 2010) advocates that being vulnerable at times shows employees that the leader is human enough and strong to allow that door to be open. Bryant (2010) outlines the five laws of love based leadership: loss forms leaders, fear breeds failure, vulnerability is power, love creates money and giving is receiving. As Connell (2008) says, Bryant (2010) points out that in a world where people aim at the benefit they receive in each action, a great leader should focus on what followers want and try to offer it. Bryant (2010) points out that most leaders lead from a distance, without knowing their employees and the employees not knowing the leader. Leaders should avoid this, dropping their egos and believing in their potential, rather than trying to hide their flaws. As Connell (2008) says, Bryant (2010) believes that leaders are meant to give while the employees receive. Generous leaders create love in their employees such that they will continue to be associated with the leader, work for him, protect him and be loyal. Connell (2008) simply puts it clearly that, givers always gain.
Biro (2014) proposes that successful leaders use love as their main tool in leadership, adding that in a State of Americas Workplace report, employees who were disengaged cost their companies over $500 billion a year in lost productivity. Biro (2014) concludes that any company that cares about their employees welfare is practicing Leadership with love, and they are on the rise.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, leaders have been holding on to a style that is obsolete and ineffective in the current age. The belief that fear is the ultimate leadership style is not benefiting to the leader, the employee neither is it improving productivity; which is the main goal of work. This is despite the fact that instilling fear still works in some environments, like the military; love truly conquers all. Leaders who embrace love most of the time are successful. As Machiavelli (1515) puts it, this should not be in excess, a balance should be stricken between instilling fear and being loved. Snook (2008) advises that a leader can achieve this by being able to read the tell tale signs of each situation and adapt as per the situation at hand. Love has a place in the leadership arena, and the more it is ignored, the more ineffective leadership gets (Connell, 2008). Leaders just need to drop their egos and focus on caring about their employees, if they really want to succeed.
References
Addison, M. (2012). Is it better to be loved or feared? Trainingzone .
Alesu-Dordzi, S. (2015 ). Should a leader be loved or feared? Graphic.com .
Altruists International. (2010). Fear Or Love – Which is Your Driving Force? Altruists International .
Amy J.C., Kohut C. M. and Neffinger J. (2013). Connect, Then Lead. Collaboration .
Anlacan, R. (2011). Leadership Styles: Feared or Loved? Business Coach Inc .
Biro, M. M. (2014). Let Love Inspire Your Leadership. Forbes .
BR. (2015). Chapter 17 Notes from The Prince. Book Rags .
Brokaw, L. (2012). The Value of Leadership “Marked by Humility and Intuition”. MIT Sloan Management Review .
Bruce, S. N. (2012). Love Versus Fear. Tiny Buddha .
Bryant, J. H. (2010). Love Leadership.
Connell, R. (2008). Love Leadership. Actionable Books .
Cremer, J. (2012). Is it better for a leader to be loved or to be feared? Quora .
Hopkins, R. (2012). In Business, It is Better To Lead By Love Rather than Fear. McCombs Today .
James, G. (2014). Is it Better to Be Feared or Loved? Inc .
Kamensky, J. M. (2013). To Be Loved or Feared? IBM Centre for The Business of Government .
LaFata, K. (2013). Is it Better to Be Loved or Feared as a Manager? Levo League .
Loizides, L. (2014). Leadership: Would You Rather Be Loved, or Feared? GoGirl Finance .
Machiavelli, N. (1515). Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared. In The Prince.
Machiavelli, N. (1515). XVII. Of Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether It Is Better to Be Loved or Feared. Batleby.com .
Marshall, S. (2011). Why Machiavelli Thinks It’s Better To Be Feared Than Loved.
Melnick, L. (2013). Why it is better to be a loved than feared leader. The Business of Social Media .
Michael Maccoby, Jody Hoffer Gittel and Michael Ledeen. (2004). Leadership and the Fear Factor. MIT Sloan Management Review .
NG. (2010). The Prince: Novel Summary: Chapters 17-18. Novel guide .
Reffkin, R. (2014). Should leaders be loved or feared? Fortune .
Ringelmann, D. (2014). As a leader, is it better to be feared or loved?
Shaw, J. (2010). Should leaders be loved or feared? Vidoe Arts .
Snook, S. A. (2008). Love and Fear and the Modern Boss. Harvard Business Review .
Solomon, R. C. (2004). Ethical Leadership and Emotions and Trust: Beyond Charisma. In J. B. Ciulla, Ethics, the Heart of Leadership (2nd ed.). Westport, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Digital sources List of Digital Sources
http://sebastianmarshall.com/why-machiavelli-thinks-its-better-to-be-feared-than-loved
http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghanbiro/2014/02/09/let-love-inspire-your-leadership/
http://www.today.mccombs.utexas.edu/2012/12/better-to-lead-by-love-than-fear
http://graphic.com.gh/features/opinion/39306-should-a-leader-be-loved-or-feared.html
http://fortune.com/2014/12/29/should-leaders-be-loved-or-feared/
http://www.quora.com/Is-it-better-for-a-leader-to-be-loved-or-to-be-feared
http://www.businessofgovernment.org/blog/business-government/be-loved-or-feared
Why it is better to be a loved than feared leader
http://www.bookrags.com/notes/pri/part18.html#gsc.tab=0
http://www.novelguide.com/the-prince/summaries/chap17-18
http://www.trainingzone.co.uk/topic/leadership/it-better-be-loved-or-feared/175730
http://www.bartleby.com/36/1/17.html
https://hbr.org/2013/07/connect-then-lead
http://fortune.com/2014/12/29/should-leaders-be-loved-or-feared/
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/leadership-and-the-fear-factor/
http://gogirlfinance.com/career/leadership-loved-or-feared/
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|