Machiavelli’s prince is inevitably going to do things that his people do not like if the prince wants to protect his land. The prince cares more about the end result than how to get there. Do you believe that the end justifies the means in your leadership? Explain your reasoning.
Machiavelli talks of those who would oppose the prince, and says that the prince should take the actions that he finds most appropriate for the desired outcome. Have you ever led in a situation where people disapproved of your vision?
Do you find more security in being feared or in being loved as a leader?
In Chapter XXI, Machiavelli discusses the importance of being honorable and wise. Appearing virtuous is not necessary but appearing honorable is. Machiavelli describes qualities that trump other qualities, such as courage over generosity. What other qualities do you find as bullet points of leadership?
The next piece of work is a discussion Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes is pessimistic toward mankind and says that everyone is against each other. Hobbes says that governments are a necessary component of society to keep men from always being at war with each other. Locke is optimistic because he feels that men want to live in a society of peace. If people think that they are free, then they will be happy. In the context of Locke and Hobbes, leadership is seen as those who have power. Who do you think you would rather have as the leader of your organization, Hobbes or Locke? Explain why.
John Stuart Mill discusses the impact of coercion on society, and says that the only time that coercion is acceptable is if the person’s behavior would have otherwise harmed someone. Mill is a proponent of individualism and fears that social pressures will lead to conformity. Discuss how Mill’s assertions draw a parallel to leadership in groups. It’d be good to discuss the circumstances of coercion, the importance of individuality, and the prevention of “group think.”
Zach Parmeter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I personally do not believe that the ends justify the means of your leadership. It may make sense at the time, but the last thing you want to do is burn bridges just to get where you want to be. You’ll likely need to rely on people throughout your process of being a successful leader – but there is a very low chance that anyone would want to help if you treat them poorly in the process.
ReplyDeleteI do not recall leading a situation where people disapproved of my vision, but I’m sure it has occurred. Many people may not stand up for what they are truly feeling – but will go with the flow and suffer through it. I used to be that person who didn’t voice my opinion. I’m certainly not saying that I’m super outspoken now, because I’m still working on it, but if I have a strong opinion against what is about to occur – I will speak up. I feel more security being loved as a leader than being feared. I feel it’s up to your personality though. I have always been a person who respects everyone as equals – so the last thing I’d want is to do is make them fearful of me. Although, I certainly never want to be a doormat and get walked over solely due to my friendliness. I think my blend of a positive personality + sternness when necessary will help in my future leadership endeavors.
Besides courage and generosity, I have quite a list of qualities of leadership. Integrity, determination, humility, openness, creativity, and assertiveness are a handful of qualities that I believe are imbedded in a good leader. If I had my choice, I would choose to have a mixture of Hobbes and Locke as a leader of an organization. Although, I know that’s not an option. To explain my reasoning – Hobbes and Locke both have desireable traits that I look for in a leader. Hobbes understands that there needs to be some sort of leader (government) to keep society at bay – but there is no need to have war amongst everyone. Locke is much more optimistic, my preferred person to be around. He understands that everyone desires to live/work in peace – but having them roam free and doing what they want will cause chaos. It would be impossible to have everyone do whatever they want whenever they please and expect for everything to be accomplished (and successfully).
Mill is certainly correct that social pressures will lead to conformity -- especially in today’s society. Coercion occurs when people are forced to accept something/behave differently than they would if not pressured. It’s very important for everyone to remain an individual in group situations – just be willing to compromise. Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach a happy medium (consensus) without doing intensive research or evaluate all ideas. Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink because their cohesiveness often correlates with unspoken understanding and the ability to work together with minimal explanations. While this may seem like an ideal situation – it certainly is not. This defeats the idea of individualism within a group and everyone forms into ONE. It’s not effective in the long run and is problematic if the group is thrown for a loop (i.e. new adjustment in the project).
I think a leader should always ask them self whether their means to an end are reasonable, before striving for the desired end. No matter how much good you may be causing by, for example, curing world hunger, your means of killing all the hungry will never be looked at as a ethical. A leader should be someone who does good for a community, while simultaneously making sure they don't negatively impact a different community. They should be ethical, so people can learn from them and be ethical as well. Although ethics may very from person to person, I think there is some degree that is relatively similar.
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of on the same page as Laura, I don't remember a time when someone didn't agree with the vision I had. However, I think this is strongly related to "group think." I'm sure there has been times when people did not agree with my ideas, but because of working in a group dynamic, they may have chosen not to say anything, in fear of a negative reaction from the rest of the group. I believe there will always be at least 1 person who either disapproves, or who prefers a different means to take action than the leader, as people are very complex and tend to think in very different ways. Its a shame that those people don't speak up more, as it could lead to a more positive means or end.
I have to agree with Machiavelli when he says "one would want to be both the one and the other," or the loved and the feared. Personally, I would rather be loved more than feared, as I wouldn't want to force people to help me, but rather they have the want to help me with my visions, and I don't want people to take advantage of me. #Respect and be respected.
Qualities a leader should maintain are integrity, being true to themselves while doing the work they do; humility, understanding that they are able to do what they do because of others; and passionate, putting their all into the work they love to do. Obviously there are more, but I think these are key qualities, and may be difficult for some to do.
I would prefer Locke as the leader of an organization, as he believes that "if the leader does not sufficiently satisfy the led, he my be recalled, by force if necessary." Instead of submitting to a self-centered, power hungry, leader, as Hobbes implies, I believe it is important that a leader be challenged if he/she is not serving the community properly. The problem arises in what people consider as serving the community properly. If Locke was the leader of an organization, and was doing poorly, he would accept that, and give someone else the chance to better lead the group. If a group is lead by someone that isn't supported, it will be very counterproductive.
I believed I discussed Mill's ideas a bit in my second paragraph. To add a little more to what I've already said, each individual brings something to a group, whether it be their strengths or weaknesses. Knowing what those strengths and weaknesses are is what makes a group strive. If an individual is either forced to keep their opinions to them self or is compelled to by fear of rejection or conflict, than they aren't able to bring something new to a group. The whole purpose of groups in leadership is to synergize, and without the individual characteristics and ideas of the members, it is unable to create that synergy.
A good leader will take into consideration both the end and the means to which they get to that end. It is important for a leader to be successful in the process of completing a goal to maintain followers and to maintain peace. In the prince's case, he did not take into consideration the process, but only his goal. If all leaders took this stance there would be a lack of compromise between organizations/countries because every group would only care about their own goals. However, it is important to be goal-oriented while keeping the process of achieving those goals in mind too.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe I have ever lead in a group where my vision was not agreed upon by the group. The best example I can think of is when I was working with a few remaining swim team members to get the swim team back. Other people on campus did not want the swim team to regain their funding for various reasons, but we had to work against them to fight for our cause. Although our cause ultimately failed, I learned a lot about the way a group works and the function of a leader from this experience. I would personally rather be loved than feared as a leader because I believe followers are feel more connection with a leader they love, and then would do more to help that leader accomplish the group's goals. I, personally, am much more compliant with a leader who I look up to and respect rather than a leader who I fear.
Two main qualities I think of in a successful leader include dependability and teamwork. Without dependable leaders or group members there is a lack of trust and feeling of camaraderie , while teamwork is important because a variety of ideas from different people can only make a group more successful.
I believe in the idea of Locke's beliefs about leadership more than Hobbes because I believe that people are inherently good and want to act good. A minimal amount of leadership that ensures the freedom and safety of all people would be beneficial because, according to Locke, if people feel they have freedom they are peaceful.
Each individual has his or her own opinions that can benefit the group. If there is any kind of threat or coercion a person may not feel comfortable including their opinion. Everybody thinks differently and has different ideas so the beliefs of an individual may be something unique to the group and can help the group toward their goal. Without contributing opinions, if group think occurs, everyone may just agree with one idea and fail to include their unique opinions, which can cause the group to miss out on valuable information.
I think that in order for a leader to be efficient they must realize that all the decisions that they make impact the outcome. So in my reasoning the ends should justify the means. If what preceded making the goal didn't matter then activities such as lying, cheating, and deceitfulness would be more commonly acceptable. I believe that paying attention to the events that lead up to the goal help the leader to gain more respect. This thought also questions whether ethics is necessary. If you cut corners to achieve your goal, what is it that you are really accomplishing? The process is a necessary consideration in leading others to achieving a goal. Machiavelli's approach was to preserve power of the state was intended only for Lorenzo. Using the advice he may be able maintain power but not receive recognition for his work for the unfavorable manner in which he attained it.
ReplyDeleteI personally have not had an experience where I was a leader and others disapproved of my vision. Perhaps in the early stages of a group project there has been disagreement about the main points of the project but that is usually solved by compromise. There are usually conflicting ideas in a group but in order for the group to make progress they must come to an agreement. If people do not stand up for what they believe it they end up surrendering to the dangers of "group think". This can lead to uncreative or generic ideas when members do not have strong intent behind their decision making.
In my leadership experience I find more security in being loved. I find that I am a person that is easy to relate and talk with so many leadership positions have involved listening to group members. I felt that they trusted and respected me, rather than feeling threatened or scared of me. I think that when a leader is loved people share more ideas and feedback rather than being frozen by fear. I would rather be a leader based on the principal of trust than having people be afraid of me.
Additional qualities that I find important in being a leader are confidence, passion, and integrity. I feel that these are a combination of Locke and Hobbes ideals. Self preservation is beneficial to have individual and creative ideas but being able to take constructive criticism through a series of checks and balance could prove to be beneficial. This would balance between being entirely individualistic or group based. Leaning more to the ideals of Locke people would experience freedom because their voices would be heard. It would be a more communal effort.
Mill believes that social pressures push individuals towards conformity. As I stated before, this is not necessarily conformity but a common agreement that comes out of compromise. People try to prevent conflict so this could be considered group think but it does take into consideration a certain amount of cohesiveness once the group has been established. It is important for each member of the group to maintain their initial ideals and principals so that they can offer their individual perceptions. This is where problems may arise in the case that members succumb to too much to conformity.
No. I do not believe that a particular end, moral or not, justifies an unethical or immoral means. For me, leadership requires a level of ethicality, and thus, a particular end would never allow me to re-establish my value base.
ReplyDeleteI am a strong believer in the need for a collective vision. Most of the time, if I feel my vision for the situation will be the most effective, I try to share my reasoning with the rest of the group, using my persuasion/communication skills to motivate the rest of the group toward my vision. If this is not possible, I will try to adapt my vision to get the rest of the group on board. I believe people are much more likely to work at maximum efficiently toward a shared vision than a strategy they do not believe in.
If being feared can be characterized as being respected, and being loved can involve being cherished, I believe it is more important to be respected as an effective leader than cherished. Respect involves honesty and integrity, two values I hold as extremely important to effective leadership.
Passion, honesty, integrity, and trust; courage, motivation, and perseverance; compassion, empathy, and commitment. These are a few of the values I believe an effective leader may employ.
Locke—I would always side with a leader who has an optimistic vision of mankind. I think that both of these social contract theorists believe there is value in some sort of societal agreement between government and the people, however Locke’s arguments are based on individual freedoms, where as Hobbes believes that people must be controlled and thus, must sacrifice all rights and freedoms to the sovereign in order to achieve safety and security.
I think when working in groups, there is always a risk of group think; however with this, I believe the acknowledgement of this risk is the best way to prevent this unnecessary coercion. I think it is important to be aware of groupthink, because if you are not, then individual ideas and thoughts become suppressed and invalidated. A good leader will acknowledge this risk, and ensure that everyone’s ideas are welcome. They will encourage collaboration and contributions from every person involved, and will facilitate effective group communication to avoid the risk of group think.
The statement "the ends justify the means" has always felt like an excuse to me. Leaders need to be held accountable and ready to answer for all their actions, not merely the final result. It does seem logical that occasionally, there are situations where certain actions are warranted because they do the most good for the most people, and I feel lucky that I don't have to deal with those situations on a regular basis. Having to choose for example between the lives of a small group of soldiers sent in to diffuse a bomb or the population of a small town that would be lost if the bomb were to explode. These are moral dilemmas that I don't feel prepared to answer to. I don’t think it’s appropriate for leaders to treat others horribly and then use the reasoning that they were only doing so “for the greater good.”
ReplyDeleteI have never really been in a leadership position where the other members of my group have really disagreed or disapproved of the vision I had. It seems that in most of the leadership experience I’ve had, the vision has already kind of been set up for me either by previous leaders or by the purpose of the group.
Being loved seems to result in the most ultimate good for both the leader and the followers. To be only feared seems counterproductive when just as much can be achieved when subordinates feel respect and love for their leader and get their tasks done because of loyalty, not out of fear. Being feared is a tool dictators use to control their subjects, not to be used by genuine leaders who care for the well being of their subjects.
Being genuine, confident and caring are on the top of my leadership quality list. Without genuine compassion for the followers, a leader has no real purpose and can be easily replaced. Loyalty from followers can only be attained though constant proof of good intentions and always acting on behalf of what’s best for the group.
I would much rather live in a society where Locke is the leader. Optimism about the human race is essential for a truly genuine leader. Always trying to find the good in people will take you farther than always looking for the faults.
Coercion is a strong word and has a very negative connotation. Sometimes it is for the good of the group to talk someone out of an idea that has little basis in reality or is not a logical use of the group’s time. The variety of each group member’s thoughts is the strongest attribute of working in teams. If each member of a group is not given a chance to express their thoughts on a topic, there is no reason for that group to be working together.
Personally, I do not believe that using the philosophy "the ends will justify the means" is an effective way of leadership. If one would look ahead to the future, would this decision cause you to have regrets? Decisions will inevitably have consequences and if ethics do not come into play, disastrous outcomes can come out.
ReplyDeleteI have never really been in a situation where the followers did not agree with the vision of the leader.
When looking at Machiavelli's leadership characteristics of being loved vs. feared, I believe a balance would be the ideal position. In order for a leader to be effective, he/she must be trusted. If a leader is feared, then it can be extremely difficult to trust them. Loving a leader can be a problem as well. A balance of love and fear is the best way.
Qualities for leadership includes: ambition, dedication, creativity, openess and being genuine.
Within Kappas, I believe the Hobbsian way would work. A governing board is essential within our group. Dealing with a couple dozen girls, drama is inevitable and on occasion e-board needs to step in to avoid a disastrous outcome. Moreover, rules in our sorority need to be followed and Hobbes would help enforce those expectations. Personally, I think that I agree with Locke more (everyone is inherently good) but realistically, this style of leadership would not work well for my organization.
I believe that we always have to think about the means and the end. A leader should be considering both of these things, and then deciding what is best to do. I would not say that an unethical means would be okay because the end is wonderful. I think that both need to be looked and and thought about. Sometimes the end can justify the means, but it depends on if the means are positive or negative, and what degree of positive or negative.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that people always agree with your decision 100%. That's the hard part of being a leader-sometimes you have to do what isn't popular or isn't favored because it's the right thing to do. There have been a few times when people have disapproved of my vision but I haven't let that stop me. Besides, I don't think they were ever really negative visions, just not what people were ready for.
I find a lot more security in finding the middle ground. During my interviews this past weekend I talked about the line between having what you call "love" and "fear" because the people I'm supervising still need to respect that I am their supervisor, but we can still be friends to a certain level. I think the best situation is a nice middle ground.
Personally, the qualities I find important in leadership are Communication, Ethics, and honesty.
This is difficult, because I believe that Locke would have a better outlook, but you cannot just assume that if people think they are free they are happy. Because you would still have people infringing on other's rights. There cannot be the absence of a governing body. Besides, I do not agree that leadership is those who have power so I have an issue with the basis of both of their arguments.
At this point in our leadership minor we all know how important it is to accept ourselves as individuals. Mills makes a great point about coercion and social pressures can lead to conformity. In groups, it is shown that when one person has influence and they start to speak their mind, they can easily begin to sway the thoughts of others, even if they initially disagreed. Without even questioning the person who seems to have some power or control, the entire group agrees, engaging in group think. It makes sense that coercion can play a role in group think as well. We know that the more ideas brought out, the better and we need individuals to bring their unique experience to the table in order to have a variety of ideas.
I think when looking at the ends justifying the means you have to look at the big picture. If a leader thinks that the way he gets to the end is in the best of his followers, no matter how he/she gets there.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I ever led a group where they disapproved of the vision I had. I have led groups where I was told to lead in a certain way and people did not approve that vision. An example I would say would be FYE. Obviously most of the first year students did not want to be there but each week I kept having meetings because that was the program I was following for my leadership.
I find more security being loved as a leader. I want people to approve of my actions and want to follow me.
I would rather have Hobbs as a leader. He I believe is the most realistic because when it comes down to it, there will always be conflict whether we like it or not. That is just the way people live. You need to have governments to regulate this conflict and look out for the rest of the people so they can stay at peace with their lives.
I think that in every group situation there is a risk of coercion and group think. If someone is really passionate about their thoughts it can be at times hard to say other ideas that may object them. So if these people agree, then groupthink occurs and it is not the best for the group. A good leader, whether he or she likes it or not, needs to have a diverse group and will be willing to object to ideas that may not be in the best interest of everyone as a whole. The more ideas that people bring to the table the better the overall decision the group will make because they will have viewed the problem from all sorts of angles.
I do not think that the end justifies the means. Being a good leader it is your duty to make rational and ethical choices throughout the time that you are leading. If you cut corners and make unethical choices just for the end decision you are not leading by example. People should trust in their leader and have faith that they will make decisions that will benefit all people. There was once a time when I was working in a group for a school project and my vision was not obtainable. My group recognized this right away and we changed the way that we went about achieving our goal.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the Hobbes and Locke debate I would rather have Locke leading my society. Hobbes does have a point that government is needed to keep people from going to war with one another, but Locke has a stronger point believing that if people are free and happy the world would run smoother. Living in a world with the freedom to choose breeds creativity which in turn leads us to fresh new leaders.
I think working in groups can be very beneficial to coming up with new ideas, there is that saying “two heads are better than one.” I think that it is important though to make sure that all members of the group are equally participating with their own original ideas so group think does not happen. If there is only one motivated person with creative ideas and the other members in the group just agree with them all the time than collaborating with others would be meaningless because everyone just agrees all the time.
I don't think the end justifies the mean because the end is always changing. You can't take one end result and expect there to be one specific path to achieving that. Sure, sometimes people disagree with you, but in the end it always gets done. There have been some times where, in group projects, I do my best to get people to turn things in on time and people complain that they have other things going on in their life.
ReplyDeleteBeing the person I am, I would rather be loved by my followers rather than be feared. I want everyone to get along and I hate there being tension between others. This would define another bullet point of leadership for me: cooperation with others. I love dealing directly with people, hence why I am drawn so much to employee relations when it comes to HR.
I like both approaches to leadership, but I am more apt to follow Hobbes. While having people do what they please freely, that can lead to slip ups and in turn more problems down the road. By putting in place a system of rules, this would ensure that people follow directions more closely.
You also don't want to push people too far. This will stray from individualism. Coercion will be appropriate when the needs to get something done are pressing. If you are unsure of whether or not a deadline will be met, you may need to work with others so they do what you want to avoid the whole team being let down.