The Leadership Essays

In the fall of 2024, I had the pleasure of taking a class with Paul Petterson at Central Connecticut State University on Leadership. We read a series of books, discussed them and wrote our thoughts in the form of essays. I think they're the right place to dive in with, so I'm going to be publishing them here, one at a time. There won't be any pictures, so you'll have to use your imaginations. Be warned, they are not the easiest of reads nor are they short, but once they are done you will understand what I think good leaders should be like.

Confucius’s writings explain that a leader needs to have a strong ethical code, and that the government should have a strong institutional structure that is based upon merit in the form of standardized tests to qualify for government jobs. At the time it was an explosive idea that leaders aren’t bred, they are trained and must adhere to a set of rules to have a government that serves the people. These writings aren’t just intended to train, they also put forth the idea of an ethical code, one that should be followed by everyone, regardless of their job or position. He makes the case for following a set of daily rituals to help build and foster community, from personal appearances to honoring those that are older or superior to a person. According to Confucius, a leader who is worthy of the title leads by example; they are generous without spending, people want to work with them, they are ambitious without being greedy, authoritative without disdain for others, and they are stern without being forceful. A good ruler will never rule with an iron fist and will never purposefully hurt those that follow just to exercise their power.

Our reading of Confucius starts by making the argument for leadership and by extension, government, to follow a highly structured code that lays out the rules, regulations, and responsibilities that they should adhere to. Confucius argues for the idea of a gentleman being the pinnacle example of all that is good and just. That this person must be honest, work hard, present themselves well, and respect those above and below them while treating them with compassion. Confucius is concerned about acting, when necessary, not just for the sake of taking the action, but for making sure that the people are ready for it, and that the timing is crucial to its success. He makes a case for ignoring those that are perceived to be the gentleman’s moral inferiors, “1.8 The Master said: “A gentleman who lacks gravity has no authority and his learning will remain shallow. A gentleman puts loyalty and faithfulness foremost; he does not befriend his moral inferiors. Then he commits a fault, he is not afraid to amend his ways (pg 10).” This is where I depart from Confucius, if we choose to not engage those that we think are wrong, then are we not prolonging that misunderstanding? How can we as a society hope to come together when we refuse to talk to each other about the things that we don’t agree upon?

I have a profound distrust of those that think they are above communicating with others because they think they are morally superior to them. This is how societies become divided, how people learn to hate one another. Communication in good faith is paramount to a healthy society. We are living in the discord that has been wrought because there has been a lack of engagement by political sides, one because they hate anyone and anything that is different from them, or makes them question their own power, and the other because they genuinely believe that talking is a waste of time. It is never a waste of time to converse with another person over things that are important to understanding each other, granted it might not be quick, and it might take many conversations, but eventually ideas start creeping in, and those that we think are a waste of time, end up changing their minds. In our current media filled lives, our conversations are rarely between just two people, there are people watching the interactions, and their opinions might be changed as well from the conversation. This lack of engagement has brought us to the place we are, where moral superiority/inferiority has turned into stubbornness, spite, and division to the point where people are living in multiple different versions of reality because they refuse to engage with those that hold opinions that might make them question theirs.

In 2.20 Confucius advises a lord to approach the people (his subjects), “with dignity and they will be respectful. Be yourself a good son and a kind father, and they will be loyal. Raise the good and train the incompetent and they will be zealous (pg 11).” This theme of treating people as though they are worthy of compassion and respect keeps popping up throughout the excerpts included in the book. Subjects, or in our case, citizens will only follow a leader if they feel supported and respected. They need to be given the opportunity to succeed, not oppressed into submission; otherwise, those leaders will have a difficult time ruling or even be overthrown. In our time, to take away a person’s rights, those that they have come to expect to be theirs as guaranteed by their government, means that the people who took those rights away will no longer be trusted by the people. The Dobbs decision turned out to be a bad ruling for the Republican party, taking away the rights of pregnant people has resulted in the election of people who seek to codify those rights in the U.S. Constitution, namely Democrats. The Republicans proved that they no longer respected the citizens of the United States and took away the dignity and in some extreme cases the lives of certain pregnant people and have only further lost the loyalty of those that they wished to lead. 

In states that don’t protect them, the Republicans have been instilling terror into their people, exactly what Confucius advises against, “Zizhang said: “What are the four evils?” The Master said: “Terror, which rests on ignorance and murder. Tyranny, which demands results without proper warning. Extortion, which is conducted through contradictory orders. Bureaucracy, which begrudges people their rightful entitlements (pg 13).” Confucius’s words still hold merit. These principals are playing out before us at this moment. There are those in this world that seek to force people to conform to their ideas, taking away an individual’s ability to determine who they love, how they love, and how they choose to find their path to personal success; trying to force an entire gender, and entire “races” (race is a construct) into subservience once again. Taking away their right to dignity, to choose who leads them (voter roll purges), the power they’ve gained (through education), and the right to determine their future; these ideas are antithetical to the writings of a man who lived over two thousand years before us. If Confucius saw the wisdom in respecting those that follow, and was able to warn about what would happen to leaders who didn’t, why are we still trying to take away people’s ability to thrive?

The problem lies in that line about not engaging with our moral inferiors, it undermines everything else that he writes about. From the division of labor to produce a government that is merit based and efficient, to being a good and just ruler. If we take away the element to question what is, simply because it doesn’t meet our moral standards, then how can we hope to actually run a country that is just? There are groups of people who have been undermined and hurt by their government, if they didn’t question those practices and rules, then how would they ever find justice? Even in a homogenous society, there will still be people who think differently, who need something else from their rulers, are they just supposed to be respectful and not ask about their unmet needs? Our society demands that we engage with those that we don’t agree with, because it is diverse in background, but also in thought. To disengage means that everyone will lose, and our society, built upon social contracts, will fall apart.

Work Cited:

Kellerman, Barbara. Leadership : Essential Selections on Power, Authority, and Influence. Mcgraw Hill, 2010.