Management by Fear
In the late 1970s and 1980s, if you were looking for a motivational career coach, especially a management coach, the least expensive would be to follow the career of Chrysler Chairman Lido Anthony "Lee" Iacocca and subsequently purchase his fine books.
Iacocca said he learned more about what not to do from poor managerial and leadership styles than what to do from sound and sensible practices. There are many management styles including:
Democratic – Leadership allows input and direction from employees;
Visionary – the leader has a vision that he or she radiates to employees;
Transformational – leaders who are innovators and want to push employees into that realm
Coaching – leaders endeavor to develop employees for the employee’s own betterment;
Autocratic – the leader or leaders at the top of the hierarchy zealously possess and retain all the power;
Micromanaging- the leader controls every aspect of an employee's work;
Servant – leaders who put people over mission thus hurting the company;
Laissez-faire – a completely hands-off or lenient manager.
Styles one through four are considered good or exemplary management approaches while the balance, five through nine, are believed to be inferior.
Having had a lengthy career with several jobs, of varying types and occupations, I have witnessed and studied many different management styles. I had hoped, as a manager myself, I would be able to apply the most worthy attributes of the better or preferred management techniques. I will admit to not always succeeding, but constantly trying.
The two worst methods or approaches that never seem to be included with the above standards are “Management by Committee” and “Management by Fear”. Both may contain a few attributes or characteristics within some customary practice but are assumed, and negatively, their own specific style.
Management by committee necessitated a meeting each morning with the affected group of employees to prioritize that day’s tasks and assignments. With everyone having unique ideas and priorities, often quite different, the most arduous and lengthy undertaking of the day was often the concluding decisions or indecisions of the morning committee meeting.
Management by fear was much more than just authoritarian or autocratic, it was essentially an anxiety instilled into each employee that if they did not perform as the manager expected, they would be reprimanded, demoted, or worse, lose their job. Under this style of management, employees would do the least amount of work to retain their occupation while satisfying management. Management by fear worked best in locations where jobs were scarce or certain types of jobs were a rarity.
I was thinking about management by fear on a grand scale, and discovered that maneuver and movement would have to include the tactics of the progressive left. Their management and resolve is “management by fear” for voter acquisition - securing inventions that the general populace will fear. The fears are crafted by those who will then say they can save the frightened populace.
And the fear is usually heightened to a more encapsulating issue, thus “critical race theory” was elevated to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). Imagine how many times in your life you could’ve been innocently called a:
Racist;
Homophobe;
Transphobic;
Biphobic;
Bigot;
Sexist;
Xenophobia; or
Misogynist.
Now the liberal left takes offense at every nonsensical or absurd statement that seems to have no connection or relevance to what was said - the race card seems to be the 53rd card in the deck right next to the jokers.
The left practices euphemisms – for example - while the US Constitution states very clearly that a person present in the United States without the proper authorization or documentation is identified as an “illegal alien” the left uses the euphemism “undocumented immigrant” even though the term ignores the fact that illegal alien has violated U.S. immigration law and the person illegally entering the country is not an immigrant at all.
This progressive left crafts issues that are used to silence their contrarians – it’s the dictatorial method of controlling people’s thoughts and thus restraining and regulating what can be said. It is a stealthy manner of hindering free speech and many of us fall for it quite often.
We are fearful of the intentions of ending the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, abolishing the Electoral College, and nationalizing voting laws because we know these are not of any benefit to the citizenry but merely a pathway to absolute authoritarianism and Maoist-style elections.
Climate change is certainly “management by fear” and being a skeptic or “non-believer” is a politically progressive transgression - even when the accuser has no science or scientific evidence about the subject. Ideology, just as in all ‘woke’ speech and conduct, reigns supreme.
Scientists on the proponent side refuse, at every opportunity, to debate the climate change issue. I recently saw the following uncredited quote and thought about how much it applied to the science of anthropogenic global warming: “Truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
