Is it better for a leader to be feared or loved?

In the 16th century, Italian diplomat and Renaissance philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book called ‘The Prince’, where he conspired against the new ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de Medici. The book outlined the most effective ways to rule and hold onto power. It was a very controversial book, and still sparks debate, even to this day. Even though it was written more than five centuries ago, this book continues to hold significant relevance today as it gives detailed guidance as to what qualities the strongest leaders of a society should have. Some individuals, like Machiavelli, vehemently argue that it is better to be a feared leader, since it is a foolproof way to avoid threats to leadership, such as revolution or disobedience, and therefore ensures that the leader has a continued retention of power and authority. Others also take this a step further to comment that being a feared leader is better as it produces maximum worker efficiency and is the most effective and reliable leadership style to ensure that tasks are completed. However, many maintain that being a loved leader is better because this leadership style creates a more pleasant working environment, which subsequently filters through to improve productivity and increase worker happiness and cooperation levels. Some may also argue that being a well-liked leader has better long-term implications for the company or country that they are running, in terms of sustained prosperity and welfare. Although Machiavelli strongly believed it is better for a leader to be feared than loved, as it provides more safety to a leader, this essay strongly argues that love is a much more positive and desirable characteristic to have in a leader.

Before attempting to tackle this issue, it is important that a few key terms are defined. Firstly, a ‘leader’ refers to a person who influences and directs a group of individuals towards achieving a common goal. Secondly, ‘loved’ can be defined as adored, worshipped or idolised. Finally, ‘fear’ can be defined as an unpleasant emotion or thought that one has when they are frightened or worried by a threat of something dangerous. 

Many contend that it is better for a leader to be feared because being loved as a leader arguably results in having less disciplinary power. If one is loved as a leader, people working for you may potentially be less likely to listen to or respect their authority and orders, as they know there are no severe repercussions. Thus, a leader who is loved can be much more vulnerable and susceptible to revolt and being taken advantage of. In some cases, this could lead to the demise and downfall of a company or nation. Therefore, as Machiavelli primarily argues, being feared as a leader is much safer than being a loved one, because a feared leader has the ability to make their people obey out of fear of what may happen if they are disobedient; for a leader, love is a dangerous thing and can be extremely untrustworthy. The people of a country or workplace may love and idolise a leader for years; however, when the leader suddenly does something that does not please the people, or goes against what the majority want, it opens up the opportunity for them to try to overthrow the leader. Ultimately, obedience because of love is unreliable and fickle, while obedience out of fear is not;  Machiavelli argues that ‘people are inherently disloyal, and, no matter how much love they have for a leader, they may betray them if it’s in their best interest or in the best interest of the state.’ For instance, Savonarola was an Italian friar who achieved widespread popularity in Florence, and was greatly loved by many while he was in power. Yet as soon as his power weakened, his followers abandoned him. Here, love is marked out as a weak force of gravity holding things together. As a result, it can be argued that it is better for a leader to be feared. 

Moreover, it can be argued that it is better to be feared as a leader because fear and intimidation serves as a great motivator of workforce productivity and output. Leaders that are feared set strict rules, ruthlessly distribute strict punishments and mercilessly give workers little to no rewards. For example, Hannibal was a infamous military commander who was known all throughout the Roman Empire for his cruelty and fear tactics. His own men were terrified of him, but still followed him with complete loyalty and devotion, as they were afraid of being subject to his harsh punishments. When employees or followers are motivated by fear, they are more likely to follow rules, stay on top of their performance and make fewer mistakes, all with the absolute aim of avoiding punishment. This fear instilled in the workforce therefore ensures that people are kept in check. So, it can be argued that in this way, productivity and output levels remain high. However, this argument can be easily contradicted by the fact that a loved leader motivates and spreads positivity in the workers and will therefore instil a more cooperative, relaxed, respect-filled and harmonious working environment. Consequently, achieving common goals and targets becomes easier and more efficient. While being a feared leader can improve performance transiently, fear ultimately evokes an unstable and distrustful relationship between leaders and their employees or followers; a society or institution being ruled by a feared leader will have high levels of anxiety, tension, stress and chronic unhappiness.  A fear-driven workforce is also less likely to take risks and be innovative because they are constantly concerned about the consequences of their mistakes and potential punishment. This subsequently leads to a lack of psychological safety or the freedom to act without fear of negative consequences. This then results in decreased creativity and productivity, as workers are too afraid to perform to their full potential. As a result, being feared as a leader can prevent workers from learning and developing, and may even impede workforce production. To expand on this point, a few years ago at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Jack Ma reiterated that leaders in the working world need IQ, EQ, and LQ – the quotient of love. This is because it can be argued that love leads to an ultimate loyalty and a willingness to go above and beyond for the leader, regardless of the circumstances. This, in turn, becomes an affection that is transferred to the other members of the team. This cohesive team spirit becomes self-perpetuating. It promotes and enhances teamwork, productivity, and collaboration. It also fosters a sense of worth in employees, which can improve the work environment, enhance productivity and output levels and increase employee retention for the organisation.

Others argue that being a loved leader gives people more freedom and responsibility than living under the constant threat of a feared leader and their impending punishments. A leader who is feared does not have a real relationship with the people. Workers and followers only obey the rules and laws established out of fear, not because they believe they are just. People can then feel that they are not a part of the country and its leadership, because they are not included, have no voice, and cannot directly participate in it. This leads to more rebellion, be it of an outright or covert nature. These spurs of rebellion cause instability within a nation, which is very damaging to a nation and its people, and can eventually become violent and place civilian lives at risk. Also, people who are constantly afraid have no motivation to contribute to society; they will uphold their jobs or responsibilities because they are afraid to lose them, but they will not try hard or be outstanding at them, but merely input the bare minimum of effort. This creates for a less prosperous nation, and less overall wealth to be distributed throughout the population. Conversely, when someone is loved, they are seen as a respected and approved authority figure. Workers or followers find that there are no elements of coercion in their tasks. As a result, more is willingly done for the leader because people are often more open and willing to obey, help, and add value to the person they love. For example, under beloved supermarket owner Artie T Demoulas’ leadership, part-time employees could look forward to a Christmas bonus and tuition assistance and saw career growth. Workers also found that it was possible to get promoted to tasks of authority. When he would visit stores, he would always ask about employees’ families and didn’t resort to cutting down wages or closing stores to preserve profit margins. Another example is Martin Luther King Jr, a leader loved by his people since he put others before himself; King was primarily a master of the art of charismatic leadership in capturing the hearts and minds of the American public and building a worldwide following. From this, it can be noted that if a leader is loved, the people being led may take the initiative to be more innovative and creative. If they feel trusted and appreciated, people are more likely to "dare to perform" to the best of their abilities or go the extra mile for their leader.   

Additionally, it can be suggested that being loved as a leader is better because a loved leader is more approachable and accessible. According to Vanessa Edwards from the Business Insider magazine, leaders who like to be feared are 'goal-oriented and value orderliness and obedience', which has occasionally proven to be an effective way of running a business. However, being loved as a leader has more long-term advantages. Being loved by your team means being trusted and caring, which leads to long-term respect and better motivation and performance levels. People feel more eager to give and contribute if they feel inspired by love and encouragement. Fear can be an inhibiting factor, especially since it inspires uncertainty, distance and competitiveness in a workplace. For example, a recent study by Wharton professor Alex Edmans shows the stock prices of firms listed in "100 BestCompanies to Work for in America" outperformed those of their competitors which had more authoritarian and feared leaders. Thus, treating employees well is ultimately more profitable than leading them with misery and terror. Furthermore, a recent article in the Harvard Business Review cited that it is better for a leader to be warm and trustworthy.

In conclusion, while fear can be an effective way of getting people to do what you want in the short term, it is not a sustainable or desirable quality for a leader to have in the long run. People motivated solely by fear are likely to be unhappy and disengaged, and they may even resent or resist their leader. From the evidence presented in this essay, it is in fact clear that a feared leader does not inspire people to be better or happier, rather, this leadership style severely oppresses them and can potentially contribute to the downfall of the leader’s own business or country. Someone who is loved is a far better and more powerful leader than someone who can only lead by instilling fear in others. It takes humility and self-confidence to inspire people to love you; anger, weakness and cowardice are all it takes to make people fear a leader. A well-liked leader, on the other hand, encourages their followers and employees to succeed at all points rather than punishing them for every indiscretion, error, or loss. A leader who is able to gain the people's love and approval and use it to benefit his country and society as a whole is therefore able to create a much more prosperous and thriving nation. This has been proven throughout history, as some of the best rulers, like Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, are usually greatly loved, admired and supported by their people, who are happy, motivated and flourish under their leaders’ rule.