“They will eat you alive.”
Those words are advice I received when I started teaching at my last academic outpost. The speaker was commenting on how important it was not to show vulnerability when I taught or to give those in the room a sense of when, if ever, I thought I may have erred and needed to correct myself out loud in the process of teaching.
I mostly ignored the advice and find it pretty useful not to try to convince students that I know stuff when I don’t, regardless of how often that is. But the advice stuck with me.
What also stuck with me is the colleague who occasionally introduced me as one of the nicest people on campus, but in a way that seemed to suggest this wasn’t a good thing. In the southern United States, there’s an expression, “Bless his heart,” which sounds positive when it is the opposite.
That vulnerability and niceness are seen as a leadership weakness is nothing new. In the early 16th century, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote “The Prince,” a book that was intended to advise Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici, the ruler of Florence, how to stay in power. In “The Prince,” Machiavelli wrote that “it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.”
His reasoning might strike some as sound. “Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared,” wrote Machiavelli. “For love is secured by a bond of gratitude which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective.”
In other words, we have a better shot of getting people to fall in line if they fear the consequences of doing otherwise. When push comes to shove, they might break with us even if they love us since the consequences are less dire.
The term “Machiavellian” has come to have sinister overtones and to connote someone who is unscrupulous particularly when it comes to politics. The sense that you should choose fear over love as a leadership tactic when you can’t have both remains pervasive.
Fear can indeed be a great motivator. But I refuse to buy that it represents a better outcome in any type of relationship. If you want followers to help you lead or do whatever it is you want to accomplish, the chances of them speaking their mind when it might go counter to what you believe are lessened if they quiver in fear. If instead they respect (or love) you, then the chances are greater that they will offer ideas that might never have crossed your mind or run counter to what they know to be your typical way of doing things.
Leading by fear too often leads to bullying others into accepting that it’s your way or the highway. Leading with love and respect – and vulnerability – is more likely to lead to a shared vision or goal.
Competence is important, yes. Preparation is critical. But if given the choice between working for someone whom I fear vs. someone I love and respect, I will continue to believe the latter is the right thing to do. I will also continue to try to lead the same way whenever given the opportunity.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy, emeritus, at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.
Follow him on Twitter @jseglin
(c) 2023 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
No comments:
Post a Comment