Battle of the Leaders: the Prince Versus the Tao

Battle of the Leaders: The Prince versus the Tao.

Battle of the Leaders: The Prince versus the Tao.

How should a country govern its people, with a soft hand or a cracking whip? This is a question that has been asked throughout the centuries and has been debated at many levels. Two of the world’s greatest historical thinkers, Lao-Tzo and Niccolo Machiavelli, have portrayed what they feel is the best form of Leadership for a country to be successful. These two forms of leadership were like the yin and yang, although they may have fit side by side, they were as white as they were black. According to Rebecca McElrath, “Lao Tzu believed that a leader speaks simply and honestly and intervenes in order to shed light and create harmony, whereas Machiavelli felt that a leader should get power and keep it by any means necessary” (p. 1). This paper will discuss the similarities and differences in the views of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli from the standpoint of religion, motivation, fear and war.

One of the few similarities between Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli was that in relation to religion. They believed that religion held some sense of influence over the people who practiced in their faith. Lao-Tzu described how religion and faith is the root and beginning of chaos. “When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos” (vs. 38). Lao explanation clearly states that the world is doomed if the stray from and lose the Tao, even morality and goodness is not enough to survive with the Tao.  Lao-Tzu continues on to say that if one were to do away with holiness and wisdom, they would be exponentially happier (vs. 19). On the opposite side stood Machiavelli and his views on religion in the sense of leadership.

Machiavelli believed that religion was influential and in that regards was a good thing, but not for a leader to be religious, but instead act religious to hold authority over the people. Machiavelli described it as:

Unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite. (Ch. XVIII)

Machiavelli seems to feel that people hold high regards to religion and those you uphold the beliefs, this is because many think that in religion only trust, sympathy, compassion and caring for the world is top priority. By having people believe you are a humble religious leader, they are more prone to being controlled, and Machiavelli believed that a good leader needed to be able to control his country and its people.

Lau-Tzu believed that control was not enough to keep a country in order; the people needed motivation as well in their leader. “Leadership is the ability to motivate a group of people toward a common goal through the delivery of positive reinforcement and actions” (Drennan & Richey, 2012, p. 60). Many people have had supervisors who were great bosses, but without the sense of motivation and reinforcement, they never became true leaders. Lao-Tzu stated:

When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists. Next best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised. If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy. The Master doesn't talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!" (vs. 7).

This describes a person who cares about those he leads, and that does not hold himself above those beneath him. It is through motivation that those who are being lead feel any sense of accomplishment and pride in their works. Also a great leader does not say this was done through me, or that it was done because of me, but lets those who created or worked with their hands to bask in the glory of being successful. There is no better way to demotivate a group then by taking away the credit they are due, this is how to be deconstructive and diminish any pride in the country or in the workplace.

        One could see that Lao-Tzu was describing a form of culturing leadership as Robert Pater put it: “By creating a supportive environment, like helping a tree to grow or culturing a pearl, in doing so you would be providing the nutrients and environment to facilitate positive change, so as to be firmly rooted” (p. 30). By having faith in humanity and their work, Lao-tzu described a sense of trust that if you let the people be, they will follow the right path that leads to “honesty, prosperity and serenity” (vs. 57). Many who have worked for companies that micro manage have felt trapped and unhappy, but those who have been given the freedom to do their job, and learn from their own mistakes, typically would have higher job satisfaction and therefore a higher level of motivation.

Machiavelli believed in demotivation, or in the sense of not providing any motivation to the people. Renford Reese stated that the former president of Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seko, was a Machiavellian in his thinking and leadership. “Mobutu embodied the belief of crushing men as presented by Machiavelli, depriving them of education, infrastructure and social programs. An educated and capable populace is more of a political threat than one that is ignorant” (p. 107). Depravation of things that can cause motivation in a group of individuals was felt to be a positive way to control the population. Machiavelli believed that through depravation, especially in education and infrastructure there would be less chance of individuals learning of other leadership styles, as well as developing a sense of hatred towards the leader. This is seen in other countries as well that once the population develops knowledge of how things work around the rest of the world they become unhappy, and no longer content with the style and status of their lives.