UDC 14:[331.1:17.023](549.1)

A. Faisal^1*, A. R. Aleemi^2*

^1*Institute of Business Management (Karachi, Pakistan), e-mail asima.zahid@iobm.edu.pk, ORCID 0000-0002-3397-8676
^2*Institute of Business Management (Karachi, Pakistan), e-mail abdur.rahman@iobm.edu.pk, ORCID 0000-0002-5212-0624

Corporate Nietzsche: Assessing Prospects of Success for Managers
with Master and Slave Moralities

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.

Keywords: leadership; master morality; Pakistan; prospects; slave morality

Introduction

The objective of any organization is not just to stay alive, but also to maintain its existence by raising its performance. Organizations such as fast-moving consumer group (FMCG) organizations, pharmaceutical companies, educational institutes and banks have leading positions in the corporate sector due to astute leadership vision and teams that have vital roles in the productivity of the organization and its subsequent revenue. Although it is commonly believed that leadership generates the fundamental link between organizational success and the employees’ output (Bass & Avolio, 1994; B. Bass & R. Bass, 2008; Judge & Ilies, 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Keller, 2006; McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Purcell, Kinnie, Hutchinson, Rayton, & Swart, 2003; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Yukl, 2010), it does not matter that only those who have strong positions at higher levels have positive and accepting mentalities. The first-line managers and middle managers may also display good leadership and possess leadership traits.

It is the traits of leaders with which this research paper links the concepts visualised by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Nietzsche’s concept of Master- and Slave- morality has been the subject of a great deal of research – and debate. He provided a view about society by demarcating it into two classes: a militarily and politically powerful, dominant group of "masters" who have control over the other, subordinate groups of "slaves" (Nietzsche & Kaufmann, 1989; Nietzsche & Smith, 1998). Master morality is the feature of strong-minded or -willed people who lead and accomplish great achievements. This is stated in the supremacy of qualities such as bravery, broad-mindedness, realism, and trust. Nietzsche shared his view that slave mortality resulted from a counterpoint to the morality of the strong-minded and success-oriented master, and that the slave morality is doubtful and conservative: it commends usefulness, social equality, political correctness, fairness, and consensus.

Degrees of this master and slave relationship can be seen in some leadership styles when the moral dimensions of charismatic leadership are observed. It is not necessary that the master-and-slaves-morality relationship is always paralleled in the current state, nor that it is seen in every leadership action. Charismatic leadership assumes a robust leader who directs visions, mission, goals, and objectives for the organization or group of people, who will be entirely devoted to the achievement of the leader’s goals (Bass & Avolio, 1994; B. Bass & R. Bass, 2008). Where an organization runs along with traditional hierarchical management, there are observable parallels with the master-slave relationship. The management of the organization may not have complete ownership of their employee force, but they believe an absolute right to form a strategy, and they presume a strict devotion to the organization strategy and its execution. Furthermore, they assume an absolute right to cope the time and action of the workers, as a minimum while they are at work (e.g., firm control of labouring hours and monitoring of the electronic activity of labours). In effect, modern management theory and practice has accepted – however accidentally – the viewpoint that at work, the employer owns the employee’s time and so, in effect, owns the employee for that time.

Purpose

Nietzsche’s concept of master and slave moralities has allocated certain qualities and characteristics to each morality group. The problem is that it is unknown if these allocated qualities and characteristics determine which level an employee occupies in a corporate organization in Pakistani society? To the best of our knowledge, we could not find any established evidence on whether these morality-wise qualities are sought after for certain positions and shunned for others. Thus, we endeavour to fill this gap and investigate the distribution of these qualities, to understand the type of moralities that people at senior management level may possess.

In addition, we aim to determine if the people at senior management positions in organizations are more likely to have Master morality or Slave morality traits; as compared to junior-level managers. Furthermore, the study aims to assess whether morality type has any association with the work experience of personnel in the corporate sector. The following hypotheses in particular were tested for the latter case:

Hypothesis 1

Null: Type of Morality is associated with years of experience

Alternate: Type of Morality is not associated with years of experience

Hypothesis 2

Null: There is no association between type of Morality and level of management

Alternate: There is an association between type of Morality and level of management

Statement of basic materials

Friedrich Nietzsche proposed that Master and Slave moralities have different principles; kind-heartedness, humbleness, and consideration are related to Slave morality however master morality principles are arrogance, power, and nobleness. However, this morality system does not take human emotion into account. The soul of master morality is superiority; other frequently represented traits include progressiveness, bravery, straightforwardness, and a perfect logic of one’s self-confidence (Nietzsche, 1885; Nietzsche & Smith, 1998). Slave morality does not object at employing one’s own will but it is usually a response to stimuli from someone with a Master morality; slaves have a cautious, reactionary outlook. Slaves are not interested in pursuing those with Master moralities in an effort to overtake them; they are generally concerned with doing what is best for the collective whole (Nietzsche, 1885; Nietzsche & Smith, 1998).

However, studies that tested the distribution of moralities in modern-day workspace could not be found; assumptions had to be made from existing literature on the effect of different managerial traits on the outcomes of the organization. For the purposes of this study, the qualities of persons with Master and Slaves moralities were gleaned from the relevant works of Nietzsche, namely, Beyond Good & Evil (first published in 1886) and On the Genealogy of Morality (first published in 1887). The extracted traits and characteristics of both moralities are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Traits of Master & Slave Moralities

In many organizations and companies, a trend has been observed: a gradual shift from autocratic leadership to democratic leadership, or at least flexible leadership styles. The era of simply giving orders and expecting those to be fulfilled are past. Leaders now need influence rather than the power of their positions; to be able to influence, leaders need to earn respect and trust; to earn that trust, communication and empathy is needed. The leader must also be able to appreciate and understand diverse cultures (Stephenson, 2011).

While Master morality leaders and Slave morality leaders are not the same classification of leaders as the 'classic leader-first' type and a 'servant-leader' respectively, the two divisions can be taken as parallels. According to Greenleaf (2007), the leader-first type of leader is the opposite of a servant-leader; the servant leader being one who shares power, develops and trains others, and keeps of needs of subordinates ahead of his own. This is similar to people with Slave moralities, while the leader-first type of leaders more closely mirrors persons with Master moralities. In between the leader-first and servant-leaders are persons who contain varying degrees and shades of both types. This study applies that same principle to the concept of Master and Slave moralities: that they are the extreme ends, with a variety of people who cannot be cleanly classified falling in between (Greenleaf, 2007). This category is named as morality with mixed-trait in the research.

A cross-sectional mixed method design was adopted for this research. The target population was managers in corporate sector, chosen because of the high level of attainable career growth. Managers from large academic institutes, pharmaceutical companies, banks and FMCG companies were selected. Sample size was determined using the WHO STEPS Sample Size Calculator and came out to be 385. Multilevel sampling was performed: the selection of corporate organizations was done on the basis of convenience, then, purposive sampling was used to evenly select managers at the top, middle and bottom level of the organizations. Managers whose job changes were too rapid had multiple position changes within a 6-month period, or had held a managerial role for less than a year, were excluded.

A specialized Morality type determination questionnaire was developed after extensively consulting available literature on the subject and extracting the traits to be determined and how best to determine those traits without revealing the questionnaire’s intent. The instrument was then validated with several experts’ reviews accordingly. The questionnaire comprised of two sections, the Demographics and Morality Quotient (MQ) Estimator. The second section comprised of two sets of statements, 'S' series, which focused on Slave morality traits and 'M' series, focusing on Master morality traits of the respondents. The traits were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. M series statements were reverse coded and 'Morality Quotient' (MQ) was determined by summing up the responses of each respondent, where the largest quotient is 130. It was estimated that the MQ will lie between 52 to 104, due to the tendency of respondents to avoid strong agreements or disagreements. Thus, the Morality type was determined based on the scale provided in Table 2. The scale as shown in the Table places the respondents into one of three categories: Master Morality, Slave Morality, or "Mixed", which suggests the mixture of traits from both the moralities. Analysis was performed via Microsoft Excel and SPSS version 22.0.

Table 2

Morality Type Determination Scale

Out of the 385 respondents, 82 (21.3 %) were categorized as having Master moralities, 167 (43.4 %) were labelled Neutrals and 136 (35.3 %) displayed Slave moralities. 22.9 % (63) of the 275 males had Master moralities, 48.7 % (134) were Neutral and 28.4 % (78) had Slave moralities; out of the total 110 female respondents, 17.3 % (19) had Master moralities, 30 % (33) were Neutral and 52.7 % (58) had Slave moralities. In females, the most common morality was observed to be the Slave morality, whereas, males are observed to be of neutral morality. It, thus, can be implied that the mixture of traits from both the types of morality can be observed in corporate males in Pakistan, whereas females tend to acquire traits of Slave morality.

The study showed that out of the 204 respondents who had work experience of fewer than 5 years, 56 (27.5 %) had Master Moralities, 85 (41.7 %) were Neutral and 63 (30.9 %) had Slave Moralities, while from the 104 employees with work experience of 5 to 10 years, 12 (11.5 %) had Master Moralities, 48 (46.2 %) were Neutral and 44 (42.3 %) had Slave Moralities. Moreover, out of 77 respondents with a work experience of more than 10 years, 14 (18.2 %) had Master Moralities, 34 (44.2 %) were neutral and 29 (37.7 %) had Slave Moralities.

A Chi-Square test was run to test if type of Morality is associated with years of experience and the Pearson Chi-Square value turned out to be 11.656 with a p-value of 0.02; hence there is a significant association between the type of Morality a person possesses and the years of experience that person has in a corporate sector. This can be seen in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Chi-Square Table: Association between Morality and Years of Experience

When it came to the distribution of moralities according to managerial level, the following are the results of the study. Out of the 135 respondents at the top level, 14 (10.4 %) respondents had Master moralities, 59 (43.7 %) were Neutral while 62 (45.9 %) had Slave moralities. From the 185 people at the middle management tier, Master morality possessors were 48 (25.9 %), the Neutrals numbered 80 (43.2 %) and there were 57 (30.8 %) Slave Morality personnel. At the first-line level the number of employees who had a Master morality numbered 20 (30.8 %), the Neutrals numbered 28 (43.1 %) and Slave moralities were 17 (26.2 %).

Personnel with Neutral or morality with mixed traits comprised the largest proportion of employees at the first-line and middle management levels; at the senior level, the most populous percentage belonged to those with Slave moralities. Moreover, a trend of declining Master morality traits is observed with the rise in managerial level. This is diagrammatically represented in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1

Distribution of Moralities according to managerial level

To test if these associations are significant, the Chi-squared test was applied to test the hypothesis: There is an association between type of Morality and level of management. Table 4 displays the results.

Table 4

Chi-square test: Association between Morality Type and Managerial Level

Thus, according to these results, the association between type of morality and management level is highly significant with Pearson Chi-square of approximately 19.1.

Given that the formulated questionnaire is not a golden standard to adequately classify persons into a category of morality, it should be noted that 43.4 % of the respondents – nearly two-fifth – could not be cleanly classified as having predominantly Slave morality traits or Master morality traits. We can assume there is a third category, which can be assumed to contain a mixture of traits from both the morality types. There have been criticisms of Nietzsche’s work, with some philosophers arguing that his claims are merely impressions and his own constructs and not referenced or unsupported by scholars (Lacewing, 2009), so it is plausible that results from research studies would differ from Nietzsche’s vision.

While Master morality leaders and Slave morality leaders are not the same classification of leaders as a classic leader-first type and a servant-leader respectively, the two divisions can be taken as parallels. According to Greenleaf (2007), the leader-first type of leader is the opposite of a servant-leader; the servant leader being one who shares power, develops and trains others, and keeps of needs of subordinates ahead of his own. As according to Greenleaf (2007), there are individuals who fall between the two types of the classic leader-first and servant-leader types, containing various degrees and shades of both the types. This study applies that same principle to the concept of Master and Slave moralities: that they are the extreme ends, with a variety of people who cannot be cleanly classified falling in between. This is reflected in the results of the study, with nearly two-fifths of the sample not falling explicitly into either category (Greenleaf, 2007).

It was observed that Slave morality was common in the females working in corporate sector which can be an outcome of cultural influence, whereas, male personnel commonly exhibited Neutral or morality with mixed traits in the corporate sector. The data is skewed in this case, as men predominantly comprise the workforce in Pakistan and are more likely to be found in managerial positions.

The study showed that the respondents with less than 5 years of experience are almost evenly distributed between the two types of morality with 31 % exhibiting Slave Morality and 28 % exhibiting Master Morality, however, approximately 42 % of the respondents with the same level of experience fall in the neutral zone or mixed-trait morality. It is further observed that two-fifth of the respondents with experience of 5 to 10 years exhibit Slave Morality, while merely 11 % of the respondents with the same level of experience fall in Master morality and 46 % of them exhibit a mixture of traits from both the moralities. The respondents with more than 10 years of experience have around 38 % of individuals who exhibit Slave Morality, while 18 % exhibit Master morality and the rest fall in the neutral zone. The findings indicate that around two out of every five personnel working in the corporate sector tend to exhibit traits from both the types of morality, therefore, it is difficult to place them in either category. Moreover, it was observed that the as the experience brackets shift upward, personnel tend to exhibit Slave Morality traits and the personnel falling in the middle bracket of experience i.e. 5 to 10 years, are more prone to deviate from the traits of Master Morality but some of them revert back to this type as can be seen by sudden increase in percentage due to upward shift in this bracket.

The distribution of moralities according to management level yielded intriguing results. The most populous percentage at the Senior level belonged to those with slave moralities, whereas, personnel with Neutral or morality with mixed traits comprised the largest proportion of employees at the first-line and middle management levels. This is despite the traits of Master moralities matching with the traits of leadership considered classic; this researcher assumed that more master morality personnel would be found at higher tiers of the organizations, but that was not the case. The Neutrals outnumbered those with Master moralities at all levels except senior management. The association between proportions of moralities present per level and level of management is found significant with chi-square as well.

A possible explanation for the above findings is that Master-morality persons tend to shift away from stagnation and are less likely to stay at top-level management for prolonged periods of time; a long-term research study would need to be performed to gauge this. The more likely reason is presented thus: these findings reflect the increasing focus on democratic and adaptable leadership instead of autocratic leadership styles in contemporary organizations. Employee feedback, constant cycling and improvements, and empowered work teams are buzzwords in Total Quality Management circles, and it reflects on the fact that the focus is shifting away from autocratic leadership to democratic and adaptive leadership. The era of simply giving orders and expecting those to be fulfilled are past. Leaders now need influence rather than the power of their positions; to be able to influence, leaders need to earn respect and trust; to earn that trust, communication and empathy is needed. The leader must also be able to appreciate and understand diverse cultures (Stephenson, 2011).

These traits are at odds with Nietzsche’s concept of Master morality, whose defining trait was aloofness over the thoughts and opinions of others. Slave morality persons are more sympathetic and concerned with the opinions of others, a trait echoed in democratic leaders and the industry trends, which is a possible cause for the proliferation of Slave-morality persons at higher management levels.

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

As displayed by the results of this study, personnel working in Pakistan’s corporate sector are not cleanly divided into those with Master moralities and those with Slave moralities; two-fifth of the respondents displayed signs of a third, as-yet unrecognized category which can be suggested as morality type with mixture of traits from both the extremes. In addition, persons with Master moralities were expected to be predominant at the top tiers of the organizations but that was not the case; Slave moralities were more commonly found. Moreover, a trend of declining Master morality traits was observed with the rise in managerial level. Furthermore, an association between work experience and Morality type was observed as well indicating adaptability of cross morality traits with increasing job experience. This could be reflective of the changing trends in leadership, with an increasing focus on those newly sought leadership qualities that are found in those who exhibit Slave morality characteristics.

References

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)

LIST OF REFERENCE LINKS

Bass B. M., Avolio B. J. Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications, 1994. 248 p.

Bass B. M., Bass R. The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York : Free Press, 2008. 4730 p.

Greenleaf R. The Servant as Leader. Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance / ed. by W. C. Zimmerli, M. Holzinger, K. Richter. Springer, 2007. P. 79–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_6

Judge T. A., Ilies R. Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002. Vol. 87. Iss. 4. P. 797–807. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797

Judge T. A., Piccolo R. F. Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004. Vol. 89. Iss. 5. P. 755–768. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Keller R. T. Transformational Leadership, Initiating Structure, and Substitutes for Leadership: A Longitudinal Study of Research and Development Project Team Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006. Vol. 91. Iss. 1. P. 202–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.202

Lacewing M. Philosophy for A2. Routledge, 2009. 392 p.

McGrath R. G., MacMillan I. The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continuously Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Boston, Mass : Harvard Business Review Press, 2000. 380 p.

Nietzsche F. Beyond Good and Evil. Chump Change, 1885. 84 p.

Nietzsche F., Kaufmann W. Beyond Good & Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. New York : Vintage Books, 1989. 288 p.

Nietzsche F., Smith D. On the Genealogy of Morals: A Polemic. By Way of Clarification and Supplement to My Last Book Beyond Good and Evil. Oxford University Press, 1998. 158 p.

Purcell J., Kinnie N., Hutchinson S., Rayton B., Swart J. Understanding the People and Performance Link: Unlocking the Black Box. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2003. 104 p.

Stephenson C. How Leadership Has Changed. 2011. URL: https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/how-leadership-has-changed/

Teece D. J., Pisano G., Shuen A. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal. 1997. Vol. 18. Iss. 7. P. 509–533.

Yukl G. A. (2010). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall, 2010. 628 p.

А. ФЕЙСАЛ^1*, А. Р. АЛІМІ^2*

^1*Інститут управління бізнесом (Карачі, Пакистан), ел. пошта asima.zahid@iobm.edu.pk, ORCID 0000-0002-3397-8676
^2*Інститут управління бізнесом (Карачі, Пакистан), ел. пошта abdur.rahman@iobm.edu.pk, ORCID 0000-0002-5212-0624

Корпоративний Ніцше: оцінка перспектив успіху менеджерів
з управлінською та рабською мораллю

Мета. Прихильники Ніцше поділяють людей на дві групи: тих, хто має мораль "господаря", та тих, хто має мораль "раба". Кожному типу притаманні характерні риси, якості, ідеології та набір засобів для вирішення повсякденних проблем. Презентована авторами стаття ставить собі за мету осмислити зазначені моральні якості персоналу сучасного корпоративного сектора Пакистану, щоб спостерігати за перспективами їх росту. Наукова новизна. Були підготовлені спеціальні методики опитування відповідно до розроблених етичних тестів для респондентів із метою виявлення їх моральних якостей. Респонденти були поділені на три категорії: підлеглі, керівники та змішані групи. Порівняння трьох категорій протестованих дало можливість виявити певні типи моральної свідомості респондентів. Висновки. Наші результати суперечать загальноприйнятій думці й демонструють, що лідерські якості керівника не завжди вищі моральних якостей підлеглих. Значна частина людей з типології "рабів", як підлеглих, була в моральному плані значно вищою типології "господарів", тобто керівників корпоративного сектора. Спостерігається певна тенденція до зниження моральних якостей керівників при підвищенні їх статусу та посад в управлінській ієрархії. Такі результати свідчать про посилену увагу до демократичного лідерства, яке приходить на зміну автократичному стилю управління в сучасних організаціях.

Ключові слова: лідерство; мораль господарів; Пакистан; перспективи; мораль рабів

Received: 04.01.2021

Accepted: 18.05.2021