In this article the question in my opinion that is begged is whether or not a leader of any sort strive for being feared or loved. In the ideal world the obvious answer would be both but if you can’t afford both then it is better to be feared. If you are just loved then people may look at you as just a peer and the folders may not listen to you. In order to be fully effective as a leader one must strive to be feared. When you are feared, you must attempt to have the followers be “fearful” of you which in return will make you most effective when getting messages across or trying to assemble things for your followers.
Previously in our class, a question that has been begged is whether or not leaders are born or made. If we take a look at some previous leaders in history who have been extremely prevalent in even todays society it is important to seek out MLK. He was someone who without being born into a religious family and his father being the “leader” at a chapel or being born during desegregation era then his role might not have been as important and he might not be able to make as big of an impact as he had done.
I agree with your statement that while it is better to be feared and loved, if a leader had to pick one then being feared would be better.
I think the question of if being feared or loved is better is an interesting one. I also agree that feared would be better, but I think even more so, intimidating over feared would be even more successful and not as negative.
The classic argument of whether a leader should be loved or feared is a good debate, but there’s a third option that is superior to both. A leader should strive first to be respect, them feared, and finally loved. I agree that if the options are between feared and loved, then a leader should strive to be feared because it creates a more effective ruling hierarchy.
As popular as MLK is in out society today I feel that many times it goes unnoticed that he was a hated leader. Obviously this was from people going against his movements, but I think its an aspect that we do not cover much today.
I really liked your argument on why it is better to be feared than it is to be loved. Like you said if there is no level of fear then people are unafraid to rebel against you or test your authority. However, if people are terrified of you and the consequences that come along with going against you then they will not rebel.
I agree with your position on why being feared is better than being loved. Machiavelli says that a free city that isn’t destroyed by the leader will eventually destroy the individual. The power of fear will suppress the thought of rebellion and thus prevent the removal of a leaders power.