Is it better to lead by example, or by force?

Question

Do we sway more to our cause by being aggressive or by being supple? What is more likely to break, hardend resolve, or gentle compassion?

Answer 1

If you are a chosen leader it is by example, If your are a self proclaimed leader it must be by example enforced by force.

Answer 2

better one lead by example rather than force for it'll take a miracle to lead the multitude than force them with a convincing act...

being agressive brings actions while being supple seems defensive, a wait and see tactic... oftentimes it saves more lives in being supple, but often they are branded as cowards or biased or selfish... yet the notion of saving more than losing more is most important when one is a leader...

hardend resolve brings force and sows fear on the bearer, an iron hand rule... gentle compassion gives the opportunist more time to rock the boat....

those things said, it depends on several factors before one chooses. in war, better be aggressive, less you'd lose the battle. in economics, a hardend resolve must take command, less the profiteer's gains more. in an emergency situation, better to act fast, be aggressive than to lose lives by just satnding by... thus, the situation for what course should be chosen lies in the ability to identify to what cause, how it affects, who's more affected, why must this be the one, etc....

a true leader, has to weigh things before coming out with a decision (so being supple more is important), he has to have a gentle compassion (for his constitutents) and a hardend resolve (for his decisions). he has to lead by example to convince his followers of his good intentions and for them to adhere his command without doubt...

Answer 3

I always like the idea of ruling with a velvet fist...

In other words, force is the last resort. Unfortunately, we have leaders in our White House who believe that force should be used without regard for the big picture and without regard for the people the force is being used against.

I think that the majority of the worlds ills could be solved by discussion and negotiation.

Killing people in the name of your belief is never a good choice.

Answer 4

The scary part about being a leader is not knowing whether people are following you or chasing you.

I would lead by example...and only force when absolutely necessary and compromise/negotiation did not work

Answer 5

Is it better to lead by example, or by force? -- By example.
By far the better choice. This leaves the other person in CONTROL, thereby making a stronger connection to where you are leading, and the free will of the person able to accept the change.

Answer 6

Well, it depends - in some circumstances, Force is better - however, those circumstances grow increasingly rare nowadays. Heck, force worked against the bestial Cathars (go Dominican friars!). On the other hand, Seethelight has a point; Jesus led by example.

Answer 7

lead by example to show how
use a little force to make them remember the example

Answer 8

I think it's deffinatly better to be lead by example. I mean, the way people say that God has a plan and such is just rediculous to me. That's compromising the fact that God said we have free will, how is our will free if he has a plan?

Answer 9

As a democrat, you might expect me to say by example. But I"m not, but I"m not saying we should lead by force.

We should speak softly and carry a big stick. We should lead by example, be respectful and courtious and behave as gentleman, but if we are attacked, we should drive our big stick up their a**. But our big stick only goes up the arses of the people who attacked us.

Answer 10

We should lead by example