TITLE:
A Review of Leadership Styles: Maimonides and Spinoza
AUTHORS:
Liron Hoch
KEYWORDS:
Leadership, Hierarchy, Obedience, Enjoyment, MFL, SAL Maimonides, Spinoza, Prophet, Prophecy, Society
JOURNAL NAME:
Open Journal of Leadership,
Vol.11 No.1,
March
8,
2022
ABSTRACT: This
paper compares and contrasts the leadership styles learned from the worldviews of Maimonides’s and Spinoza’s thinking. The paper seeks to
unearth the similarities and differences between these two models for the
purpose of proposing suitable leadership styles for different environmental
conditions and desired relationships between leaders and followers, thus,
ensuring a connection between the leadership style and the nature of its audience.
The paper claims that Maimonides’s concept is similar to that of the flexible leadership style, while Spinoza’s concept is similar
to an affective leadership style. The similarities between these models are that they can operate
in a complex, challenging environment through the use of ideal
communication, persuasion, awareness, and activism. Both models believe in the
political structure as necessary for human life and also where one needs a
political framework to fulfil his/her destiny. Further, these models
acknowledge that an individual is part of
society and is shaped by it. Therefore, the individual is compelled to
give of him/herself to society. However,
the paper outlines several differences between these two models of leadership
styles. The basis of these divergent views
lies in the conception of God and how the two worldviews view the
functions of prophets and prophecy. The differences also emanate from how each worldview views issues to do with society and human ideals. For example, Maimonides’s flexible leadership is characterized by a hierarchical mode of leadership headed by a
single leader, and it demands obedience
and does not put emphasis on the enjoyment of things. These characteristics
are reflected by the way God rules the earth as the exclusive sovereign from the top and embody the
hierarchical order which requires obedience
to the commandments of religion, including obedience in beliefs and
opinions. On the contrary, Spinoza’s affective leadership is characterized by
non-hierarchical leadership, obedience is not a requirement, and emphasis is
placed on the enjoyment by both leaders and
followers. There is also no difference between God and nature; in fact, the fundamental
conceptions of monotheistic religions are
criticized. The paper further outlines the benefits and limitations of each leadership model and
concludes by recommending that the research may provide a basis by which to
match an audience, with its unique
conceptual or operational structure, to the appropriate leadership style.