Corporate Nietzsche: Assessing Prospects of Success for Managers with Master and Slave Moralities
Keywords:leadership, master morality, Pakistan, prospects, slave morality
Purpose. Nietzschean proponents classify people into seemingly two distinct groups: those possessing 'Master' moralities and those with 'Slave' moralities. Each type of person is characterized to have certain qualities, traits, ideologies, and methods of dealing with everyday situations. This paper attributes these moralities to the personnel working in the corporate sector of Pakistan to observe their prospects of success. Originality. A specialized survey instrument was designed to gauge different Morality Types of the study subjects by calculating a Morality Quotient. The respondents were then categorized into three categories possessing, Slave, Master and Neutral or Mixed traits. These traits are then contrasted to the position(s) held by the subjects to see which morality type was more prevalent in higher management levels and whether the association was significant. Conclusions. Our results prove to be contradictory to common wisdom and shows that despite the leadership-like qualities of those with Master moralities, the proportion of those with Slave moralities was significantly higher at senior management levels of the corporate sector in Pakistan. Moreover, a trend of declining Master morality traits is observed with the rise in managerial level. In addition, an association between work experience and Morality type was also observed indicating adaptability of cross morality traits with increasing job experience. These findings are in line with the increasing focus on democratic and adaptable leadership instead of autocratic leadership styles in contemporary organizations.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. (in English)
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York: Free Press. (in English)
Greenleaf, R. (2007). The Servant as Leader. In W. C. Zimmerli, M. Holzinger, & K. Richter (Eds.), Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance (pp. 79-85). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_6 (in English)
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797-807. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797 (in English)
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755 (in English)
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational Leadership, Initiating Structure, and Substitutes for Leadership: A Longitudinal Study of Research and Development Project Team Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202-210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.202 (in English)
Lacewing, M. (2009). Philosophy for A2. Routledge. (in English)
McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. (2000). The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continuously Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Review Press. (in English)
Nietzsche, F. (1885). Beyond Good and Evil. Chump Change. (in English)
Nietzsche, F., & Kaufmann, W. (1989). Beyond Good & Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. New York: Vintage Books. (in English)
Nietzsche, F., & Smith, D. (1998). On the Genealogy of Morals: A Polemic. By Way of Clarification and Supplement to My Last Book Beyond Good and Evil. Oxford University Press. (in English)
Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2003). Understanding the People and Performance Link: Unlocking the Black Box. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (in English)
Stephenson, C. (2011). How Leadership Has Changed. Retrieved from https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/how-leadership-has-changed/ (in English)
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. (in English)
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. (in English)
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).