First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Post Reply As a Leader Is It Better to Be Feared or Respected ?
22108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / US
Offline
Posted 3/13/13 , edited 3/13/13
Respected of course. What good is having someone work under you when you can't trust them and they want to kill you every waking moment because they're afraid of you? Look at the dictators. Yeah they had power, but they had 2x as many enemies because they were feared. I bet by the end of the day, even their mothers hated them.
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 3/13/13
I'm surprised no one on this forum has brought up Lelouch. If your goal is to unify the world against a common enemy (you) fear works.
17735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / San Francisco Bay...
Online
Posted 3/13/13

hopfly wrote:

Machiavelli came to the conclusion that it is better for a leader to be feared than to be respected, but many disagree.


That's actually not true. He said it is better to be feared than loved, which is quite a different thing than respect. He also immediately followed it by saying that at all costs one must avoid being hated. While that may have proved true in his time that it is better to be feared when the king or prince had unlimited power, in today's world of democracy where one must negotiate to get anything done, it's not as true. However, I would agree that a certain amount of fear is necessary and desirable, especially if there is another country which you have bad relations with.

13648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 3/13/13
Respected by the masses...
Feared by subordinate...
34602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/13/13

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


No.

The leader's goal?

The people's goal?

A third party goal?


Infer what you want, that's irrelevant.

17053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/13/13

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


CrimsonGrim wrote:

It's depends on the government. In Machiavelli's model, he referred solely to a monarchy, a government where one person has absolute control/final say. In that case fear; Provide what your people need in the the way you feel is best and punish those who stop you. After all as a king/queen, if the people don't fear you, they will most likely rebel if they disagree with you. However in a democracy where people choose their leaders, you want respect. You want people to acknowledge, respect, and choose you to be the leader, thus you have to keep your people's respect or they boot you.


Naw just paint the other guy as a: a) Commie, b) liberal, c) Muslim, d) infidel, e) Neocon. out to destroy your vision of what your country should be. Or better yet get involved in some war or other crisis so that people fear the change of the new guy over your 'experience' of having gotten them into a mess in the first place.

The abuse of Fear by all political factions is why political parties polarize and no one can compromise with the 'opposition'.


I'm not saying that all political leaders don't use fear, but to be elected in a democratic process, you need to be respected, not feared (Or at least more so respected than feared). In fact, the reason political leader resort to such under-handed tactics is to lessen the respect that opposing candidate.
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 3/13/13

hopfly wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


No.

The leader's goal?

The people's goal?

A third party goal?


Infer what you want, that's irrelevant.



But the goal of (whomever) is deciding weather a leader is 'better' and the value judgements you or I would place upon that goal ARE relevant.

If you're trying to lead people in a manner that is preventative. That is to day your goal is to stop an event or a behaviour I imagine fear would work very well.

If you're trying to do something that requires sustained positive action. You'd probably be better off imparting your goal in the hearts of the people you purport to lead. I imagine this is more easily done if they respect you.


If the goal is something on which we place a negative value. (ie Tyranny, Genocide etc. ) then weather or not a method is more effective will be moot regarding weather it's perceived as 'better'



67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 3/13/13 , edited 3/13/13

HimitsuUK wrote:


AruarianDance wrote:

in what case would a leader who struck fear in the populace be of any use?


Past example - Hitler

Current example - Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-un.


Hitler was feared and is demonized (rightly so) But was fear all he had going for him?

Yes people were afraid of his increasing power. yes we now know some things about his regime that he and his close subordinates tried to hide from the general populace.

But was fear the ONLY tool at his disposal? This was the guy who in the thirties was respected (by some) as the man who rebuilt germany, who gave it pride and strength again after a bloody defeat, crippling war reparations and depression nearly as bad as the one ( to reference Mugabe) that Zimbabwe is undergoing now. He secured his chancelorship and control of the government through non-democratic means. but there still remainded people who voluntarily voted for his party, who eagerly joined his party and who voluntarily became part of his apparatus. Time Magazine made him 'Man of the Year' in the mid thirties.

Did they do this entirely out of fear?

I honestly don't think so.



8726 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Ctf_2fort
Offline
Posted 3/13/13
Respect. If your group doesn't respect you, they won't fully follow you. They may do what you say, but they secretly reject your judgment, even if it is minimal. Like so many other things in the world, things start out small and grow over time. Fear will lead to disrespect, which will ultimately grow to rejection of your decisions.
10820 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 3/13/13 , edited 3/13/13
If this was a vote I'd say respect, and liked, that's the biggest difference in the world. If those don't exist many other problems can crop up. Fortunately, I've never run into that when I have been in positions as a leader
2134 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/13/13
Your allies should respect you and your enemies should fear you.
16688 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 3/13/13

PhyongHwa wrote:


Gyava wrote:

It depends on what environment or who the leader is leading. Both a benevolent-kind-well respected leader and/or a tyrannical-feared leader can be better depending on the situation.

However, it is important to note that a leader can be both feared and respected.

I attend USMA which is filled with basically 100% leaders, and there are many that I respect for different reasons; one includes a sort of "fear."

It's also hard to say if the economy has moved forwards or backwards to say the least. Yes, we can look at the short run outcomes such as a decline and a (most recent) improvement, but there could be some long-term lag that we are not able to see. I also don't think that the past two presidents were more "fearful" at all. If anything, people seemed to just want a big change/shift in the system.


^This.


^ amen.
19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 3/14/13
Definitely a combination of the two.
1782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / 13° 00 N, 122° 00 E
Offline
Posted 3/14/13
Respected ofcourse. Who wants to be feared anyway?
34602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/14/13

efaigabriel wrote:

Respected ofcourse. Who wants to be feared anyway?


Nancy Pelosi?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.