Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian Renaissance writer and diplomat. He wrote “The Prince”, and he expresses several characteristics which he believes are important to be a successful leader. Such as, being feared rather than loved, not revealing the entire and/or real reason they’re doing something unless it’s somehow advantageous to them, being duplicitous, and being narcissistic. I disagree with these opinions. First of all, Machiavelli claims it is better to be feared rather than loved. How can we let one man in history decide which is better? Understand that Machiavelli not just tries to push this opinion on us, however his reasons against affection are not very much legitimized. His main argument is that if we continue to be generous, those around us will want more and more. This is valid, yet liberality isn't the main method for demonstrating love. Rulers and Princes could have effortlessly shown love through their activities and words. Persistent discourses of how one will ensure his kin or "laborers" demonstrate love. By not using brutality and sparring those in need shows love. This is the thing that will draw the support of the citizens. Martin Luther King Jr. was cherished by all …show more content…
They are frequently more intrigued by controlling others than in knowing and teaching themselves. Absence of compassion and outrageous freedom make it troublesome for narcissists to coach and be tutored. As a rule, narcissistic pioneers set very little store by tutoring. They from time to time coach others, and when they do they normally need their protégés to be pale impressions of themselves. Leaders shouldn’t be narcissistic so they can so they can work on themselves and be more productive. Notwithstanding acting naturally intelligent, they are likewise prone to be open, amiable, and