The better leader is more loved? Or more feared?

[MysticSang'ha]

Cue Macchiavelli, Thucydides, and the Melian dialogue from the Peloponnesian War:

The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. In Thucydides' account, the Melians express this view as follows, "If such hazards are taken by you to keep your empire and by your subjects to escape it, we who are still free would show ourselves great cowards and weaklings if we failed to face everything that comes rather than submit to slavery." The Athenians counter that the debate is not about honour but about self-preservation.

When we govern, mentor, lead, or parent, is it more compassionate of those who follow to have them submit out of fear due to assumed self-preservation, or out of love for their leader who may lead by example? How is respect and trust most earned? More through right? Or more through might?

Where is your opinion on the range of power politics?

 

[Penumbra]

It seems to me that leading by love, intellect, example, and inviting people to come along is a much better arrangement for everyone than to lead by fear.

Depending on the context, a good leader may occasionally have to flex some muscle, though. Like even if a parent tries to be really friendly with her kids, she may occasionally have to ground them or otherwise assert her authority. Similarly, a country's leader may aim for peace but still needs a justice system and a military.

I'm currently working to find the balance at work. I'm the youngest project lead in the organization and I have some engineering team members that slack off sometimes. In most ways we're peers in terms of age and interests and stuff (and some are older, many are men) but in terms of organization I have responsibility to assign them work, oversee their work, make the broad project decisions, and make sure the projects get done. So I'm usually pretty nice but every once in a while it has to be kind of awkward where I have to kind of list out how little work someone has done in a month and ask what they're doing.

 

[Quintessence]

It's my understanding that fear is by far the more efficient short-term motivator, but deteriorates over the long-term. Conversely, kinship is by far the more effective long-term motivator, but lacks any efficacy over the short-term.

Which strategy is best to use, therefore, should depend on whether the problem is long-term or short-term.

 

[LuisDantas]

Mentoring and particularly parenting through fear or might is a self-defeating proposition. It is not a bad option, but rather not an option at all.

It doesn't really work for politics, either. We just take longer to realize that.

 

[methylatedghosts]

The better leader is one who creates more leaders. I can't see that working particularly well with fear.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, fear does breed fear... but it doesn't work well either way.

 

[Sir Doom]

The real key to being a trusted leader is consistency. When you act the way you always act or the way you always say you are going to act, then people will know what to expect of you and can trust you to act a certain way in any given situation. This goes for governing by fear or love, though I would give the upper hand to love. People naturally gravitate towards those that show them compassion and empathy. If this is done consistently, that's a trust bonanza.

Fear is a necessary tool of leadership, however. Circumstances can be dire. I think it is important that dire circumstances are communicated regardless of the fear it might cause. Sometimes this is exactly what is needed. There are situations obviously where the reaction could get out of control if the circumstances are not understood, so it is best to select the appropriate time to reveal bad news. Naturally, if you are the boss who goes around holding everyone's jobs over their head, you are going to find yourself minus employees sooner or later. That's bad leadership. The dire circumstances have to be real and impending for it to be honest and empathetic and therefore a trust builder.

 

[Pastadamus]

Fear is a very bad way to rule a people. It is better to lead by example and by compassion than by using an iron hand.

If history has taught us anything it is that totalitarians like Hitler and Stalin will inevitably be consigned to the dustbin of ideas.

 

[dust1n]

How is respect and trust most earned?

Same for people as anything else... a good track record.

Where is your opinion on the range of power politics?

I believe people should lead themselves and interact with voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.

 

[LuisDantas]

The real key to being a trusted leader is consistency. When you act the way you always act or the way you always say you are going to act, then people will know what to expect of you and can trust you to act a certain way in any given situation.

A question for anyone who wants to answer it: is that a good thing? When so, and when not, and why?

 

[dust1n]

A question for anyone who wants to answer it: is that a good thing? When so, and when not, and why?

Assuming someone isn't consistently killing people, than ya, a history of good deeds indeed makes a much better case for someone's legitimacy than anything else.

 

[LuisDantas]

But does consistency necessarily lead to good deeds?

 

[dust1n]

But does consistency necessarily lead to good deeds?

Does being consist on about whatever one is doing lead to good deeds in and of itself? No way.

Does being consistently truthful and acting with compassion for others lead to good deeds in the future? I would think it natural and reasonable to see someone in this position to be far more likely to act appropriately in good faith rather than someone who has no history of doing so already.

 

[F0uad]

This is a old concept about Good vs Evil.

Love brings people together and that is what you want in a society.
Fear brings anger, suspicion and other things in a society.

However the Love can also become negative and the Fear can become positive someone has to find a balance between the two.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Like most things in life, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Universally, the key to being the most effective and efficient is to use the right tool for the job. In the case of leading, sometimes fear, sometimes love, usually a bit of both - and the ability to recognize when a shift is needed.

 

[Sir Doom]

A question for anyone who wants to answer it: is that a good thing? When so, and when not, and why?

It's a good thing for anyone who intends to be a leader. It provides a somewhat stable way to build trust in those you lead. If your followers trust you, then you can better trust them to follow your intentions. Controlling trust through consistency is a form of mental conditioning. Whether this is used for 'good' or 'bad' ends depends entirely on the leader. Obviously, trust is not a permanent quality either. The mob is fickle.

It is a bit disturbing how easily we can be conditioned, though. Obviously this has been taken advantage of by horrible people before and is likely being taken advantage of as we speak.

 

[arhys]

Respect lies somewhere between love and fear. A good leader is not judged by emotional standards.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Abstract ideals are highly impractical in leadership. What matters is getting the job done

 

[Sir Doom]

Respect lies somewhere between love and fear. A good leader is not judged by emotional standards.

I agree about respect, but that is an emotional judgement as much as love or fear. A leader (good or bad) is judged by every standard their followers feel like. Or non-followers for that matter.

Abstract ideals are highly impractical in leadership. What matters is getting the job done

Getting the job done is important as well as practicality. However, regardless of how impractical things like emotions might be, they are present. Thus, it is impractical to ignore them.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

It's not that emotions are impractical. It's that adherence to ideals like "I should be loved, not feared!" as a leader is a handicap. Good leaders are pragmatic; the job is what's important and it takes everyone beyond themselves, whether the mission is invoked with fear, love or something else altogether.

And the job should indeed be a labor of love.

In nearly all cases a whip to crack is needed, even if it's never used.