English Language Resources Online - series on leadership, power, politics, part 5

English Language Resources Online - series on leadership, power, politics, part 5

Welcome back to the series on leadership essays, power essays, and politics essays. This part deals with Virtue and Leadership Essays.

With respect to the previous post, here is the second part of the essay under scholarly or technical critique. Do remember to read and learn with an open and inquiring mind, as it is good for you to see what is bad in this paper.

Part 2 (of the essay, with the essay title:
Are there certain virtues that are necessary for leadership?
Or does it all depend on the situation?
Comparing Machiavellian and Confucian schools of thought)

The Confucian Analects seem to focus quite a lot on the perfection of human conduct, portrayed as a cultivation that can only take place by engaging and maintaining relationships with other people in a social context. Merely talking about the ideals without practicing them was of little value to Confucius. And the person who understands the importance of refinement of human conduct, he called an “exemplary person”, or Chun-Tzu (Pg 12, Ref 5), a term that literally means “scion of ruling family”; which is sometimes translated as “superior man” or “noble man” (Pg 37, Ref 6). Honour, for Confucius, was not ascribed by birth but achieved by effort and through developing human relationships in compliance with Confucian virtues such as humanity (jen), righteousness (yi), conscientiousness (chung) and faithfulness (xin). For him the ‘Way’ to be Chun-Tzu lay in enacting these ideals. The term “Way”, or Tao, literally means a path or road, and figuratively it means a way to act (Pg 37, Ref 6). Confucius perhaps wanted to convey that it is human endeavour that articulates Tao and not the other way around, and that this human endeavour encompassed the knowledge and practice of different virtues.

From the Analects, it is revealed that Confucius expects “the objective of Chun-Tzu to seek the Tao” (XV, 31, Ref 4). There are many dialogues in the Analects that make it clear that Confucius expected a Chun-Tzu to dedicate himself to the cause of Tao, regardless of his circumstances. The dedication, according to Confucius, needs to be so deep that a person who “aims to be Chun-Tzu does not seek satisfaction in eating nor comfort in lodging; he is diligent in his work and careful in his speech. He associates with the people of principle that he may be rectified” (I: 14, Ref 4). So much so that “regardless of whether there is starvation in farming or riches in the pursuit of studies, a Chun-Tzu worries about Tao and not about poverty” (XV: 31, Ref 4). His adherence to the Tao must involve no association to those who deviate from it but nevertheless he must be prompt to correct his own mistakes (I: 8, Ref 4). He applauds Chu Po-Yue as being “indeed a Chun-Tzu (for) when the state wanted to follow the Tao, he served it. When the state discarded the Tao, he rolled his principle up and kept it in his breast” (XV: 6, Ref 4). Thus perhaps even in the case of leadership, Confucius expects one to dedicate oneself to the fundamental Confucian virtues in order to ascertain his adherence to Tao.

The word Tao was a cardinal principle of common faith at the time of Confucius (and not simply the monopoly of the Taoists). It was the common denominator of truth and the fundamental criterion of moral conduct to all different schools of religion and philosophy (Pg 38, Ref 6). Thus, Confucius emphasized that the Chun-Tzu should be dedicated personally to the cause of Tao, no matter what one’s personal fortune and destiny would be. From the Analects, it seems that the Tao is not merely a metaphysical idea to be pondered and speculated upon, but the fundamental cause of humanity to be enacted in life. Confucius seemed to not bother explaining what Tao is but to be more concerned with the question of how to act out Tao. But he simultaneously postulated that Chun-Tzu should be a man of many Confucian virtues like jen (humanity), chung (conscientiousness), shu (altruism) and so on.

Thus far we have seen that Machiavellian virtù is a concept that seems to be fundamentally in contrast with the principle of Confucian virtues. While one does not see just appearing to be virtuous as immoral or not “virtuous” (as long as the prince’s purpose is fulfilled), the latter considers a person to be “virtuous” only if he or she is truly and sincerely devoted to the way of the exemplary person. But as to why they differ so much in the assessment of one’s “virtue” in his leadership is not the concern of this essay paper. What we shall now explore is how these two aforementioned interpretations of “virtue” show an agreement over the non-existence of a definite set of virtues that are required for leadership. They both suggest that it in fact depends on how an apt “virtue” is implemented by a leader according to the situation. This will be done by trying to understand the similarities between the flexibility of Machiavellian virtù and the dependence of Confucian virtues on a Chun Tzu’s situation (or role) in society.

The adjective 'Machiavellian' has become a synonym for immoral scheming. Machiavelli seems to be advocating immoral behaviour (possibly for its own sake) when he sings the praises of Cesare Borgia who thought nothing of having his own henchman murdered and left him in pieces on the piazza. On closer inspection, however, Machiavelli's position is far more subtle. As Isaiah Berlin has shown in his essay – The Originality of Machiavelli, Machiavelli wasn't writing a manual for leaders who wanted to learn how to be evil. The Prince, at least according to Berlin, shows how there can be more than one morality, that neither the conventional morality of Christianity nor the classical tradition of the virtues will suffice for the leader who wants to be an effective ruler. What is needed in a ruler, Machiavelli tells us, is virtu, the courage to be cruel when necessary, even to the point of sacrificing innocents for the sake of the principality.

Additionally, it may be commonly understood from The Prince that Machiavelli divided politics from morals; and that he recommended actions, which common opinion morally condemns, as politically necessary for a prince. But that is not necessarily a completely correct judgement. For Machiavelli, the ends that he advocated are those to which he thinks wise human beings, who differentiate reality from the ideal world, will dedicate their lives to.

Machiavelli says that it is necessary for a prince to “know how to play the beast as well as the man” – a role that the ancient philosophers taught covertly when they imagined Chiron the centaur as a teacher (Pg 22, Ref 1). As Leo Struass has pointed out, Machiavelli here agrees with the ancients and with Christianity that man’s nature is composite, but he replaces the Christian combination of God - man with that of beast - man. He represents the latter image as the one ancient philosophers in fact meant (except that the philosophers back then used it covertly) and exposes this by speaking next of using the fox and the lion. In Machiavelli’s perception, human beings take the shape of animals instead of Gods (Ref 1, Chapters 7: Cesare Borgia and Chapter 19: Severus as virtuous and most ferocious lion). By omitting the comparison of man to Gods, Machiavelli may have tried to direct our attention away from the similarity between the ancient views of man as a rational animal, in which rationality is something divine, and the Christian viewpoint. By removing this divine element from the human character (Pg 41, Ref 2), what mainly remains is the element of flexibility of Machiavellian “virtue” – while beasts are confined to their single natures, man is a beast who, because of his rationality, is flexible to take on the nature of any convenient beast. When Machiavelli says that the prince must use both natures of the lion and the fox, he adds that “the one without the other is not durable” (Ref 1, C18). The two ‘beast-like’ qualities are necessary to each other; they are correlated and inter-independent. Perhaps for this “durability”, that Machiavelli thus suggests flexibility in virtù is necessary. We shall now seek to understand the dependence of Confucian virtues on a situation of a leader.The notion of Confucian virtue, in contrast to the notion of Tao that it falls under, seems multifarious in the Analects. For instance, in the context of father-son relationship, parental care and concern are required of a father, and filial piety and respect are required for a son. But in the context of ruler-subject relationship, the ruler is to be responsible and credible, and the subject is to be dedicated and supportive. Several passages illustrate various virtues Confucius mentioned as the moral quality of Chun-Tzu. In the Analects, Confucius saw Tsze Ch’an as a Chun Tzu who did not show more than one “virtue” – “In his private conduct, he was courteous; in serving his superiors, he was respectful; in nourishing the people, he was kind; in ordering the people, he was just” (V: 15, Ref 4). Apart from these, the Analects described more such Confucian virtues that a Chun Tzu must have according to the context of the dialogues. For instance, Confucius, humbly disentitling himself as a Chun Tzu, says that a Chun Tzu is characterized by the following “virtues” in his conduct – “Virtuous, he is free from anxieties; wise, he is free from perplexities; bold, he is free from fear” (XIV: 30, Ref 4). More importantly (with regards to the purpose of this paper), when Confucius said that a “Chun-Tzu regards righteousness as the substance of all things; he practices it according to the guide of propriety” (XV: 17, Ref 4), this may serve as direct evidence to deduce that simply knowing Confucian virtues, without the knowledge of where and when to apply them, is inadequate.

The virtues such as righteousness, courage, wisdom, broadmindedness are highlighted by Confucius as the moral quality of Chun-Tzu. It is clear from the Analects that virtuous conducts in human life, enveloped by the way of humanity or Tao, are various. In each different situation, a specific virtue is called for. Now a ‘situation’ cannot simply be understood as an instantaneous circumstance in a rather temporal sense; there is a broader way to do so. Part of the structure of society is determined by the different roles each member plays in that society. Since Confucius expects a Chun Tzu to work towards the welfare of the society, he can only begin to do so by first playing his role(s) in that society according to Tao. Hence each of such roles is a significant part of the ‘situation’ in which a Chun Tzu must not fail to follow the Tao. A Chun Tzu must be aware of these different roles of human relationships that he plays, and hence be competent in flexibly applying the “virtue” befitting his role at any given moment, in any given situation. Though it is impossible, according to Confucian Analects, to itemize all the virtues, but a Chun-Tzu should be the person of many virtues and also learn the wisdom of applying these aptly. In other words, the appropriately flexible conduct of “virtues” according to a situation is essential to follow the Tao - a central principle of morality in the teachings of Confucius.

Therefore, while the distinction between Confucius’ teachings to follow the Tao and Machiavelli’s guidelines for a prince to preserve the State is correctly observed, so is the similarity in the flexible way both expect a person to apply his “virtue” in leadership. The thoughts of both Confucius and Machiavelli (at least as understood from their respective works) merge to the idea that the “virtues” required for leadership depend on the situation the leader faces. Some may not agree to this thesis saying that the flexibility of Machiavelli’s virtù is absolutely different from the Confucian virtues that depend on a Chun Tzu’s role and situation. For Confucius, the flexibility in applying Confucian virtues is only within the domain of following the Way for one to be Chun Tzu whereas for Machiavelli the flexibility crosses the line to encompass use of immoral means to achieve the prince’s purpose. While Confucian virtues are driven strictly by the idea that a leader must strive to comply with Tao regardless of what his objective is, Machiavelli’s virtù is a rather a guideline to make a prince consequentialist in his objective to “preserve the State”. As much as these analyses are valid and important, the discussion on the difference in the limits and levels of the flexibility between Machiavellian virtù and Confucian virtues is not of concern in this paper. In fact, these differences in the flexibility are nothing but a manifestation of their respective interpretations of “virtue”. However, differences in their interpretations of the social construct of “virtue” would not necessarily imply that their ideologies on applying “virtue” in leadership are distinct as well. Instead, the above analysis of Machiavelli’s The Prince and the Confucian Analects reflects that two ideologically and historically very different viewpoints have shown a striking similarity on how “virtue” must be implemented in leadership. There is sufficient evidence in the respective texts suggesting that for a leader to be “virtuous” (in association to Machiavelli’s virtù and Confucian Tao), he must be versatile in employing his “virtues”. This versatility (or flexibility) needs to come from the leader’s thorough comprehension of the kind of situation he is in; only then, in the Machiavellian and Confucian schools of thought, can a leader best apply an apt “virtue” to it. It is unrealistic to consider an individual as a leader only based on his knowledge of a certain virtues ‘necessary for leadership’. As important is the knowledge of “virtues” in leadership, so is the judgement of calling the right “virtues” in the right situation. The question that then arises is whether this skill of making the right judgement is innate to one’s personality, or if it can be learnt from guidance and experience. Since this skill seems to be a significant ingredient of leadership, perhaps the answer to that question can throw some light on if leadership, too, is by virtue of one’s nature or nurture.



We have come to the end of this analytical essay on Virtue and Leadership.

What have you learnt from this paper and the manner of writing - its technique, style and concept? Do consult the previous post to remind yourself of the important questions that you should be asking yourself regarding this second part of the essay. Thanks for reading and cheers!

English Language Resources Online - online essay materials, sample essay site, essay techniques and skills site, and English language resources for all sorts of topics