Love or Fear to Motivate: Which is Better?
Gregg Zegarelli Esq.
Managing Shareholder at Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC
A kind reader made an observation in the commentary to The Republicans Need to Learn from the Democrats. [#GRZ_215], regarding a comment purportedly made by President-Elect Trump; to wit:
"As Trump stated not many years ago when asked “what is the greatest motivator”…FEAR. It’s one of few times he spoke honestly."
[1] The issue of "motivational fear" is a fantastic issue, irrespective of attribution to Trump. Indeed, Trump would not be alone in making the statement. It is an age-old perennial leadership issue. I responded in the limited space of the commentary, but, upon further reflection, I thought it would be better to take a moment to expose the question in its own discrete post, particularly for younger leaders as a point of reference.
I will assume that President-Elect Trump made the statement for assessment purposes. Trump is as practical and battle-hardened in the real-world as any objective-based leader. [2] As I have said, anyone can deride Donald Trump, but yet he remains clever, smart, strong, and brave. If he made the statement, it would be drawing upon years of assessment of deal-making and people-moving. Truth be told, I can believe that Trump made the statement, because the statement is, at times, absolutely true and wise, which makes the statement correct enough, notwithstanding at other times, the statement might be false. It depends upon context, as I will explain.
Let us stay on the practical big picture with our conditions: Love or fear to motivate?
We notice that love and fear are not quite binary opposites, but they work as counterpoints because love may imply its opposite (to love one thing might be to hate another [3]) and security is the antithesis of moving [4].
Love can be divided into perfect love and imperfect love.? To define our terms, "perfect love" is self-sacrificial and does not require anything, it will die for the cause at any cost of self (Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi). Perfect love does not require external motivation, as the motivation is self-sourced and self-propelled. Perfect love is ultimately sacrificial, such as by martyrdom. There is really no discussion regarding tactics of motivation regarding someone with perfect love, because nothing external will move perfect love from its objective, whether that objective, or the attainment of it, is wise or foolish. (We can help someone to discover an objective, but that is a different issue.)
Having separated "perfect love" from the generality of "love," we have remaining the "imperfect love." Imperfect love is love to a point, or to a degree. Imperfect love will only go so far. Some people might say it's theoretical semantics (if it's not perfect love, then it's not really love). Perhaps that is true; however, experience in real life teaches us that there are degrees, even with love, with exceptions to perfection getting rougher or finer. ("I would die for it by guillotine, but not necessarily by being poisoned, crucified, or by self-starvation." or "I do love him, but I mean...I would not die for him.")
Pure love contradicts the survival instinct to martyrdom and self-sacrifice, where imperfect love only contradicts it to a point or as a matter of degree. Survival is the most basic human instinct, and perfect love perfectly overrides that instinct, but perfect love contrary to natural human instinct is only the fine exception, not the general rule. Simply stated, all experience teaches that it tends to be a true statement that people, even if they do love each other, love each other only to a point. The general rule is selfish survival first, then selfish comfort. [5] Therefore, we will put aside perfect love and use imperfect love (that has a limit) as our motivational counterpoint baseline.
Love and inspiration are always better for a willing audience if it can be adduced, because it is self-propelled, at least within the space of the love (before reaching its limit, making the limit immaterial in the moment).?
But what if love is not willing or able to be adduced? Not everyone who must be motivated (moved) will love the object to be attained. [6] Seduction is preferred over force, but seduction is not away successful. [7]
That leaves "fear" as motivation. But, attributing to President-Elect Trump use of the word "fear," with a pejorative connotation or prejudice, is not completely fair, because suggesting fear as a motivational tactic is simply saying that the object to be motivated will be self-interested by the most basic survival instinct in self-preservation.? Fear is a natural function of the insecure quest for survival. But here's the thing about fear: Unlike the tendency of love, fear is not a happy state of existence.
There is, of course, something different technically than love or fear, being "reward," usually meaning some offer of comfort. Imperfect love and reward share the attribute that they work only where the object of motivation (person to be motivated) accepts the condition. That is, if the love cannot be adduced, or the reward is not appreciated, then love and reward fail as motivators. They only work sometimes by a critical path dependency that is uncontrollable to the motivator, putting the would-be motivator at risk. Reward shares the attribute with fear in that reward tends to be selfish or self-interested. Thus, reward is conditional like love in method, and reward self-interested like fear in effect.
Love and reward sometimes work, but fear as motivation tends "always" to work because it attaches to the most basic instinct of survival (or failure of comfort). Stated otherwise, the carrot works better if the person loves carrots or finds value in carrots as reward; otherwise, the stick.
But...but, here's the thing: Because love and inspiration are happy states as a general rule, love and inspiration as motivational tactics tend to be sustainable long term. Because fear is an unhappy state, it tends not to be sustainable long term. Thus, pick the extent of the pleasure or the poison, as the case may be, as a general rule: A risky condition, if satisfied, that is sustainable; or, an assured condition that is not sustainable?
Where there are teams and organic bonds, with high probability of affinity, love is the preferred motivation. It sustains itself naturally. However, where there is resistance to affinity or a failure of it, fear is the preferred method. Reward is somewhere in the middle.
Therefore, we might adduce that Donald Trump's statement (if he made it) is not mean or nasty [8], but only exposing that his context is one where bonding by love or reward does not sufficiently exist in probabilities such that his experience is that fear is a better motivator. (The cause for that context is a different issue.) Judas was on the Jesusian team until he was not, and he may have loved Jesus to a point, but the reward was a better motivator caused by the Romans, and without any fear caused by Jesus, at least for the moment.
So the leader's choice: Love (and reward) sometimes works, and it tends to sustain. Fear "always" works, but it tends not to sustain.
Which is better to motivate? It depends. Love works better, if...if we can get it and where we can get it. [9] However, because imperfect love (and reward) has limits, fear still has its staid, tried and true reliable role.
Perhaps a rule of thumb: A lot of carrots, and a looming stick. Each serves an essential purpose.
And, notwithstanding the prefatory statement about Donald Trump's speaking about fear being "one of few times he spoke honestly," I'm not so sure that's correct. Donald Trump knows the rule: "Lavish cause to inspiration, meted offer of reward, looming threat for fear." He's just expressing the last part of it, because he tactically wants to make sure the loom looms. The art of the deal is correlated to the art of the lie, and Donald Trump knows it. [10]
"Multum animus, metiri praemium, imminere minas." ("Much inspiration, measured reward, looming threat.")
* Gregg Zegarelli, Esq., earned both his Bachelor of Arts Degree and his Juris Doctorate from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His dual major areas of study were History from the College of Liberal Arts and Accounting from the Business School (qualified to sit for the CPA examination), with dual minors in Philosophy and Political Science. He has enjoyed Adjunct Professorships in the Duquesne University Graduate Leadership Master Degree Program (The Leader as Entrepreneur; Developing Leadership Character Through Adversity) and the University of Pittsburgh Law School (The Anatomy of a Deal). He is admitted to various courts throughout the United States of America.
Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.,?is Managing Shareholder of Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC.?Gregg is nationally rated as "superb" and has more than 35 years of experience working with entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, including startups,?INC. 500, and publicly traded companies.?He is author of One: The Unified Gospel of Jesus, and The Business of Aesop? article series, and co-author with his father, Arnold Zegarelli, of The Essential Aesop: For Business, Managers, Writers and Professional Speakers. Gregg is a frequent lecturer, speaker and faculty for a variety of educational and other institutions.
? 2024 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
#GreggZegarelli #Fear #MotivationalFear #Love #Pleasure #Pain #Trump #DonaldTrump #PresidentialElection #Motivation #Wisdom #Zegarelli #GRZ_216