Confucius, Machiavelli, and Rousseau have written about the concept of leadership. Each has his view of what type of person a leader is and how a leader should act. These views are contrasting in many areas. The purpose of this draft is to first discuss each one’s teachings on the concept of leadership. However, it is not enough to just state each school of though, but application of them is important. Therefore following the facts will be a section discussing where Carl vonClausewitz and I fit. This section will choose the school of thought that we are most closely associated with. Finally there will be a brief summation of the most important points contained in the draft.

Each author has his own view on the concepts of leadership. In order to make it easier to understand, the facts will be separated into three areas, with one devoted to each author.

Confucius is one of the most famous Chinese philosophers. There are many tenants to the School of Confucianism, but the main concern is with the ability to overcome the ills and evils of society. His approach is very humanistic, rational, and has a high set of moral values. Confucius felt that the only way to do this was to the virtue of the ancient kings of China. The path back to that virtue was by revitalizing the five important relationships. The five cardinal relationships are ruler-subject, father-son, husband-wife, elder brother-younger brother, and friend-friend. Confucius said that the individual must pursue of humanity, benevolence and goodness in order to save the world from the destruction it is moving towards. This is a brief overview of Confucius, and to follow are some of his major ideas that are found in the Analects.

The first of those ideas is that people are either superior of inferior. The person who is superior would be the person who acts because he is motivated by a need for belonging. This person is one who wants to become a part of the surrounding community. The inferior person is more of a loner. This person is motivated purely by self-interest. He is trying to get ahead, by doing only for himself, and disregarding the feelings and well being of others. One of the main tenants of Confucianism is the five cardinal virtues, and the inferior man will never have good relationships.

The second main idea is that people are teachable and perfectible. That is that men have the ability to change and shape their own destiny. The goal for every man is to become the superior man. This idea shows that fate is not set in stone, and that one can start life as inferior, but through work and practice can become superior. Along with this is the idea of the five cardinal virtues. These virtues, Confucius believed, were the true source of one’s power and authority within society. The five cardinal virtues are courtesy, unselfishness, good faith, diligence, and kindness.

Confucius also discussed what it took to make a good society. Confucius said a good society was one that contained a system of well-ordered relationships. The relationships were based on the strong ideal of mutual obligation. Once again one can find the idea of community in Confucianism. It is the idea that we must do for each other, not because the law says so, but because it is the correct thing to do.

The final three ideas to be looked at all deal with the concept of leadership. Confucius had his specific idea of what makes a leader, and some of those ideas are found in the Analects. The first deals with the proper goal of leadership, the second with the proper attitude of leadership, and the third with the proper task of leadership. The first of these ideas is that the ultimate goal of leadership is to establish a good society. To Confucius, a good society is one that only needs law and punishment as the minimum basis for order. However just establishing this type of society is half of the goal. The other half of the goal for the leader is the ability to sustain the society after it has been created. The second of these ideas is that the proper attitude of leadership is based on filial piety and respect. This means that the leader is first of all a gentleman and superior man. He is a cultured individual who is able to surpress that basic instinct of self-interests and put forth the good of the community. The third of the ideas is that the primary task of leadership is delegation. Confucius says that the proper task of a leader if the distribution and maintenance of justice. A leader should have the ability to be fair.

Niccolo Machiavelli is another of the great scholars that wrote on the concept of leadership. However, unlike Confucius, Machiavelli wrote on leadership pertaining to politics. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses the proper attitude, action, and demeanor of a prince that wants to maintain power. The prince is a cynical view of politics as it is known for its lessons in ruthlessness, cunning, and duplicity. The most famous phrase to come out of The Prince is "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the basis for anyone who considers himself to be Machiavellian. In fact, Machiavelli has become so popular that the term Machiavellian has become an adjective because it is used so much. Although The Prince is contradictory to Machiavelli’s own views, it is what he is most remembered for. However, this is a bit of a dubious distinction, since his book has been called evil. This brief overview helps explain Machiavelli, now a more focused discussion on some of Machiavelli’s main ideas will follow.

The first idea of Machiavelli is observation not understanding is important. Machiavelli felt that wisdom could be achieved by careful observation not understanding human nature. Machiavelli places the emphasis on watching how people actually behave. The observation allows the prince to see how his subjects act and think. This knowledge can be used when leading the very same subjects by giving the leader the ability to anticipate. Human nature cannot give a leader the same knowledge, especially when looking at his second idea. That idea is that human nature is inherently wicked or in the least amoral. Unlike Confucius, Machiavelli feels that human nature is set in stone and cannot be changed. Machiavelli felt that there was no way to improve human nature, let alone perfect it.

Next Machiavelli discusses some ideas of society and what is necessary for it. The first idea deals with the essential features of any society. There are two features and they are struggle and intense competitiveness. These are what any society will be based on, and the prince must act accordingly. Therefore, Machiavelli says that a prince must act with intelligence. Machiavelli says that he should act with expedient to achieve and maintain power. This is the fundamental goal of Machiavelli’s writing: the ability to not only achieve, but also maintain power. Another thing that Machiavelli considers is the uses of law and punishment. Machiavelli says that both are necessary and sufficient for order. He feels that in order to maintain power a prince should create laws and punishments that will expedite the process of maintaining order.

Finally the last set of ideas deals with morality. He first says that human excellence is measured in terms of virtu. Virtu is the capacity of the intellect and the will to act with vitality and without inhibition. Machiavelli says a true leader is the one who has liberated, rather than repressed, the natural instincts for power and profit. This view is a view that is more concerned with self-interest. As far as the tenants of morality and religion, Machiavelli says that they are irrelevant unless they are useful in creating an well-ordered society. Finally Machiavelli contests that the true source of power are the military, the state itself, and the natural instinct for domination.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a renowned scholar of the Enlightenment. He wrote on education, politics and morality. His thinking is cited as being one of the cornerstones of modern political theory and some of the political changes that have occurred throughout the world. However his writings have been called mean-spirited and insensitive for the concepts that he discusses. Rousseau’s basic tenant is that human nature is innately good but is corrupted by the loss of freedom brought on by the social inequality. In the Social Contract Rousseau tries to not only describe the political institutions, but he also tries to establish the basic principles for any legitimate society. Rousseau establishes the idea of the "general will", which is part of the Social Contract. The purpose of the Social Contract is to create a society that has the conditions necessary for a life of freedom. The Social Contract deals with the fundamental questions of organization, human nature, and leadership.

The first concept that Rousseau discusses is that human nature is innately good. Rather than it being the person himself, Rousseau blames society as the reason for the vices and corruption of human nature. Secondly he states that in the state of nature, the individual is characterized by self-love accompanied by natural compassion. However this self-love is not bad, but rather Rousseau calls it healthy. The third point that Rousseau makes about human nature is that even though society corrupts human nature, it also has the possibility to perfect human nature. Rousseau, like Machiavelli, feels that human nature is not set in stone and can be changed.

Next Rousseau deals with the concepts of society and leadership. The first concept is that of the just society. Rousseau says that in a just society, the general will replaces all individuals’ natural freedoms. This type of society is based on a social contract in which each person surrenders his/her own individual rights to create a new corporate person, which is where the general will resides. There is a strong sense of community. Rousseau, then, says that the proper role of leadership is to facilitate the discovery of the general will, and to forge the social contract. In other words, the role of the leader is to forge the sense of community and to create the corporate person. Finally, it must be noted that the individual does not lose freedom, but rather he rediscovers it in the general will. The social contract creates a general will that will always act for the good of the society. Rousseau creates a system that forgoes self-interest, but rather creates a concept for the society a whole through the social contract.

These are the three schools of thought, but now it is necessary to know how to apply the lessons learned. The analysis will focus on where Carl vonClausewitz and I will fit in these three schools of thought. The first part will focus on Clausewitz, and the second part will focus on where I will fit.

Clausewitz would best fit in with the Machiavellian school of thought. Both Machiavelli and Clausewitz are elitists, which feel the higher echelon of society should be the leader. In On War, Clausewitz makes the statement that war

is an extension of the political process. When Machiavelli wrote the prince is was written as an instruction manual for a political leader. It was written as a help manual to aid the leader in achieving and maintaining political power.

First of all, Clausewitz says that a leader needs to possess the ability to see the truth, even in a lot of trouble. Machiavelli’s ideas include an emphasis on observation. He says that true wisdom comes from observing the way people actually behave. This is how a military leader can find the message in the middle of a battlefield. He needs to see how the other army is behaving and then decide how to act. Only careful observation can lead to a decision. However there is a second part to this equation. Clausewitz continues to say that the leader needs the courage to follow this vision. It is not enough for a military leader to decide how to act, but he must have courage to act. A military leader that is not confident and decisive is ineffective and useless. Once again, this echoes one of the ideas in Machiavelli. Machiavelli says that the prince should do what it takes to gain power. In order to do this; the prince needs the courage and decisiveness to act quickly.

Secondly, both Machiavelli and Clausewitz feel that the leader needs to be able to deal with information. Information is needed to make swift and correct decisions. Clausewitz discusses military leaders, and a military leader needs to be able to deal with information. War is a very uncertain situation that involves a lot of chance and fate. Clausewitz says that only military genius has the ability to get past the chance and deal with the information. A prince must also be able to deal with information. A prince will have his advisors and subjects telling him what to do. The prince needs to be able to deal with all this information and make a swift decision. Along with dealing with the information, is the conclusion. Both Clausewitz and Machiavelli’s ultimate goal is a successful conclusion. They both want to win, and in order to do that the leader needs to assimilate all the information to make the proper decisions. All the decisions will affect the outcome; therefore the importance of the decisions being correct is paramount. One incorrect decision and the army can be defeated or the prince fall victim to a coup d’etat.

Both Clausewitz and Machiavelli appealed to Communist thinkers. Clausewitz appealed to such thinkers as Lenin, Marx, and Engels because of his view that war was essentially a political instrument. Machiavelli appealed to the same type of leaders because of his "do what is necessary" policy of governing. For example, Russia reformed their army patterned after the Old Prussian model of Military, the same model Clausewitz wrote about. They reformed everything from the general staff right to the system of education. This was successful, since the Russian Army remained one of the two strongest militaries in the world, until the fall of the Berlin Wall. Also Clausewitz has had a rebirth in the modern era. Many new generation thinkers are looking to Clausewitz to see if they can formulate new strategies for the control of nuclear arms. Machiavelli appealed to the same thinkers because he felt a leader should do whatever is necessary to maintain power. Stalin was one of the most ruthless rulers in the history of mankind, and it was said that he slept with a copy of The Prince at his bedside. Once again, it comes back to the Machiavellian philosophy of "the ends justify the means." Machiavelli has had longevity, as his philosophies are still around today.

I feel that I would fit into the more modern school of thought, namely Rousseau. I have many of the same ideas that Rousseau has discussed in his Social Contract. Both Rousseau and myself feel that there needs to be a strong sense of community, and a general will of the population. A society that remains based on self-interests is destined to fall, since eventually self-interests will clash and a civil war will begin. For Rousseau, as well as myself, the task of the leader is to forge the Social Contract and the general will.

One idea that Rousseau states is that society does corrupt human nature, but it also represents the ability to perfect it. I agree because I do not feel that human nature is fixed, and that society has the innate ability to perfect human nature. Rousseau says that man is innately good and that society corrupts man. This is definitely a tenant that I agree with. I feel that man is innately good, otherwise where does philanthropy come from. When looking at society as a whole, humans show that most are king, generous, reasonable people. The minority is the amoral, mean-spirited type we see on the evening news. To me this shows that human nature is innately good, and the shortcomings of society cause the corruption of the amoral section. However, we can look to the same society and see that they have the ability to become very good. An example can be drawn from a few previous natural disasters in the United States. After terrible floods in the Midwest and horrifying hurricanes in the Southeast, the society within the United States donated a lot of money, food and clothes to help. Even though our society is considered to be quite corrupt, we showed that we could become good. These types of charitable acts show that human nature has the capacity to change, and that society can change for the better.

Secondly I also agree with the idea of the general will. I do not believe that a Machiavellian society would be successful. Doing whatever it takes to promote your own self-interests will lead to unrest within the subjects and ultimately a loss of power. There is a fine line between doing whatever it takes and going too far. The chances of going to far a Machiavellian society are great. However, this is not a worry with Rousseau because self-interests are nonexistent. The use of a general will promotes a sense of community and concern for others. This means that the leader does not need to be ruthless and cutthroat in order to maintain power. Rather a leader only need to facilitate the general will, by first helping create that general will then setting the example of how everyone else should act. By creating a general will, the opportunity for society to improve human nature is greater.

Finally I agree that even in a society that uses a general will, the individual never lose his freedom. The general will is an instrument to give an even greater sense of freedom and security. In a society based on self-interest, one must always be aware of his enemies and anyone who has conflicting self-interests. This is the greatest loss of freedom since the individual loses the freedom personal security. In the Social Contract, Rousseau states that the general will always acts for the good of the society. Therefore people do not have to worry about their neighbor, rather they have the freedom to act as they want according to the general will, that is the only requirement.

Confucius, Machiavelli, and Rousseau each have a view on the concept of leadership. Confucius centers on the idea of the superior and the inferior man. The superior man is the one that has the ability to be the leader. Machiavelli centers on the idea of doing whatever it takes to achieve and maintain power. He feels that anyone can become a leader, so long as the are willing to do what it takes to achieve that platform. Rousseau centers on the ideas of a social contract and the general will. He feels that the leader is the person who helps facilitate the general will. Clausewitz is considered to be a great scholar on military leadership. However, when examining his writings we see Clausewitz can be placed into one of these three schools of thought. The choice for that is Machiavelli. Both discuss leadership in terms of politics and having the ability to make decisions that move towards a successful outcome, no matter what the actions may be. For Machiavelli and Clausewitz the ultimate goal is success. It can also be seen that I fit into one of the categories. I am more closely associated with Rousseau because we both are more centered on the will of the community being of prime importance. WE both see the general way as the way to a great society.

Return Home