By: Aakrith Harikumar
Edited By: Leah Li
This semester, I’m taking a class called “Leadership, Ethics, and Decision Making.” Don’t let the simple title fool you. It’s one of the most demanding courses I’ve taken. I’m still an infant in understanding the harsh complexities of leadership, but I do know a little more now than I did then.
One of the boons of being an extreme introvert is spending so much time alone that after a while, your brain begins to create multiple voices with which you can have fascinating conversations. Perhaps the only thing left to do is the Pessoa-esque naming of those voices. But I digress.
My internal dialogue had a straightforward understanding of leadership:
Inner voice 1: “Wow, being a leader must be stressful. You’ll have to please so many people and balance everybody’s interests.”
Inner voice 2: “Not really. Leadership is just about doing the right thing. Do the right thing, and everything else will take care of itself.”
Boy, was I wrong! I wish it were as simple as that. Now, I’m not the brightest bulb in the room, and that class is an overload of information (I mean that in the best way). But there is one lesson I took home: No matter how hard you try, there is always someone you’ll end up disappointing. Make your peace with that, and you’ll find leading easier. In other words, as English monk John Lydgate said:
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”
In my observations, people today dichotomize leadership. You’re either a ruthless, cunning giant or a highly righteous idealist who cannot see that the world is unforgiving. But there’s another way.
I have always looked up to two influences who shaped my understanding of leadership; The Ancient Roman Stoics and Niccolò Machiavelli. They could not be more different. However, dear reader, I hope I can convince you that they complement each other.
Nobody in life has it “all figured out.” But the Stoics got pretty close. The most famous one was the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. I’d say the Stoics knew a thing or two about leadership.
Stoicism is having its renaissance today with people on social media constantly discussing it. Of course, most of the chatter is a misplaced understanding that confuses Stoic and stoic. Stoicism today is incorrectly interpreted, leading to a culture of emotional toxicity. I’m sure the big three of Stoicism, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, and Seneca, would be rolling in their graves if they found out how people interpret and capitalize on spreading Stoicism today. Stoicism originally focused on the four cardinal virtues: wisdom, justice, temperance, and courage. Although there is much more to Stoicism, had I to give you my own concise (perhaps half-witted summary), it would be this:
We spend so much time worrying about things we can’t control. Most of life involves events you can’t control. Focus intensely, work on what you can control, and leave the rest to fate. At least you will have done your part.
According to Stoicism, leadership often involves learning to make peace with the bitter truth that most of life’s events are not under your control. Strong leaders lead by example, through discipline and genuine care for the people they serve. Even if a strong leader fails, Stoicism asserts that if people recognize their leaders acted with integrity and with their best effort, history will be kinder to them.
Fast forward a couple thousand years to the same modern-day Italy the Stoics came from. There was no “Rome” to keep everyone in awe. Europe is a different place with multiple empires fighting for power. Amidst all this emerges a privileged little boy from Florence who would completely change how we understand leadership and virtue. That boy would rise to become one of the most important figures in Florentine politics and eventually, global history. And his name is Niccolò Machiavelli.
Until the Renaissance, virtue was commonly associated with the Aristotelian notion of the “golden mean,” which prioritized everything in moderation. For example, too much courage makes you stupid, and too little makes you a coward. The golden spot is in the middle. Ergo, the mean. Machiavelli would turn this virtue on its head. To him, virtue was fundamentally about maintaining power. Machiavelli emphasized emulating features of the lion and the fox by combining strength and guile for effective leadership. He also famously quipped that while it is ideal to be both loved and feared, fear is ultimately more important. While Machiavelli’s prioritization of power is well-known, his motivations for doing so may be highly misunderstood. Of course, he didn’t exactly say “Hold on to power and be evil because that’s the only way you’ll be successful.” His writings were more of a “Hey look, this is the world we live in now and I’m telling you this because you should be prepared to deal with some lions and foxes.”
In sharing these opposing leadership tenets, my goal is not to force a choice between the two. In fact, you can be both an Aurelius and a Machiavelli.
As future leaders, we can emulate the values the ancient Stoics stood for in our own leadership journeys by being just, kind, brave, and tolerant. But as we do so, let’s also remember Machiavelli. Don’t get me wrong, not everyone is “out to get you.” However, as we go through the rungs of the leadership ladder, it is normal to face challenges. As a result, the Machiavellian leadership style is not necessarily a stamp of approval for deceit, but rather a reminder to be vigilant against it. Solving the leadership dilemma is understanding how different people think. In those challenging moments when people are out to get us, we can rely on the four cardinal virtues of Stoicism to light our way.