A Review of Leadership Styles: Maimonides and Spinoza

Abstract

This paper compares and contrasts the leadership styles learned from the worldviews of Maimonides’s and Spinoza’s thinking. The paper seeks to un-earth the similarities and differences between these two models for the pur-pose of proposing suitable leadership styles for different environmental con-ditions 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 struc-ture as necessary for human life and also where one needs a political frame-work to fulfil his/her destiny. Further, these models acknowledge that an in-dividual is part of society and is shaped by it. Therefore, the individual is com-pelled 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 hierar-chical mode of leadership headed by a single leader, and it demands obedience and does not put emphasis on the enjoyment of things. These cha- racteristics 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.