As we discussed Shih Huang Ti (a leader who ended the warring states and unified China through ruthlessness to the point of cruelty) and Han Feizi (a Chinese philosopher who prescribed this method), the question arose as to whether it is appropriate to be stern or cruel in order to gain power as a leader.
I have a very hard time accepting the idea that it is okay for leaders to be openly cruel to their followers. Though not a pacifist, I am a firm believer in communication before conflict, collaboration, and philanthropy. As a Humanist, I believe that we develop ethical values from human need and human interest; that fulfillment in life is achieved through service and humane ideals; and that we find meaning in relationships and thus working to benefit society (and these relationships) brings us happiness. Although I am not flawless in my actions, I am passionate about people and try my hardest to act in order to protect them from or help them through harm rather that put them through it.
I have a very hard time accepting the idea that it is okay for leaders to be openly cruel to their followers. Though not a pacifist, I am a firm believer in communication before conflict, collaboration, and philanthropy. As a Humanist, I believe that we develop ethical values from human need and human interest; that fulfillment in life is achieved through service and humane ideals; and that we find meaning in relationships and thus working to benefit society (and these relationships) brings us happiness. Although I am not flawless in my actions, I am passionate about people and try my hardest to act in order to protect them from or help them through harm rather that put them through it.
This is not to say that we should be calm, collected, kind people, free of anger and harshness at all times (let’s remember my support of Aristotle in his prescription for balance in every human character). It is to say that I believe we can be too harsh or not harsh enough depending on what best serves humanity.
Unfortunately, this can be a fine line to draw as the definition of what “best serves humanity” may not be universal. For me, best serving humanity requires a leader to aim to develop followers, not aim for material power. This adds a form of depth to his leadership process. The goal should not be power, but empowerment.
A professor in the management department used an example from his work experience to demonstrate the importance of policy and follow through. In order to provide the best service for the customer, his policy was that if an employee ever neglected a customer, he would be fired. The situation in which a customer was dissatisfied resulted in an analysis of the employee’s interaction with the customer; when it was determined that the employee neglected the customer, her was fired. This proved that the manager was serious. After the first customer-neglecting employee was fired, it didn’t happen again.
I believe that this is an acceptable action for a leader. I do not think it was excessive or cruel, but simply necessary for the company to function as it should. Analysis of the situation with the employee and the customer showed care for the employee, the customer, and the company. The process was not done to instill fear but, rather, to set a standard and a work ethic. The manager’s policy created an environment that was controlled but empowering.
In the case of Shih Huang Ti, cruelty was enforced to show power and to show who was in charge. It was meant to subdue followers rather than rein them in so that the leader could help them succeed better. Rather than develop future leaders or empower people—rather than help humanity—the cruel leadership of Shih Huang Ti built power for the current leader so that China could be powerful, no matter the human cost. Shih Huang Ti’s own son wasn’t even empowered as a leader and was overthrown. The success of the power was purely on the surface; a material success. It is this abuse of power that is not justified in leadership.
Unfortunately, this can be a fine line to draw as the definition of what “best serves humanity” may not be universal. For me, best serving humanity requires a leader to aim to develop followers, not aim for material power. This adds a form of depth to his leadership process. The goal should not be power, but empowerment.
A professor in the management department used an example from his work experience to demonstrate the importance of policy and follow through. In order to provide the best service for the customer, his policy was that if an employee ever neglected a customer, he would be fired. The situation in which a customer was dissatisfied resulted in an analysis of the employee’s interaction with the customer; when it was determined that the employee neglected the customer, her was fired. This proved that the manager was serious. After the first customer-neglecting employee was fired, it didn’t happen again.
I believe that this is an acceptable action for a leader. I do not think it was excessive or cruel, but simply necessary for the company to function as it should. Analysis of the situation with the employee and the customer showed care for the employee, the customer, and the company. The process was not done to instill fear but, rather, to set a standard and a work ethic. The manager’s policy created an environment that was controlled but empowering.
In the case of Shih Huang Ti, cruelty was enforced to show power and to show who was in charge. It was meant to subdue followers rather than rein them in so that the leader could help them succeed better. Rather than develop future leaders or empower people—rather than help humanity—the cruel leadership of Shih Huang Ti built power for the current leader so that China could be powerful, no matter the human cost. Shih Huang Ti’s own son wasn’t even empowered as a leader and was overthrown. The success of the power was purely on the surface; a material success. It is this abuse of power that is not justified in leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment