The common phrase “you attract more flies with honey than vinegar” defines the premises in which we are to discuss and ultimately my position. Representative Carlos Curbelo’s assertion in his 2018 interview about the efficacy of collaboration over fear tactics in persuading others is indeed valid and supported by numerous examples across various contexts. While fear may temporarily compel compliance or action, it often leads to resistance as the population that is affected grows weary, or even unresponsive, to the effects of fear. Collaboration, on the other hand, fosters understanding, trust, and sustainable change and is generally a mutual positive for all parties involved. Moreover, it is simply common sense that the ability to effectively persuade someone can come from places other than just fear because most of us do not use fear to make day-to-day decisions.
To begin with, consider the realm of public health. When governments and health organizations seek to promote healthy behaviors or address public health crises, employing fear-based messaging can sometimes backfire. For instance, campaigns that use graphic images or dire warnings about the consequences of smoking or unhealthy eating habits may evoke fear initially, but they often fail to inspire lasting behavioral change. This is especially apparent in the cases of addicts because they can be more prone to dismiss the potential, long-term harm for the guaranteed, short-term gratification. In contrast, collaborative approaches that involve communities in designing and implementing health interventions tend to be more effective. For example, community-based programs that offer support, resources, and education on smoking cessation or healthy eating habits empower individuals to make positive changes in their lives, because of this mutual exchange of positive collaboration, without resorting to fear tactics.
Similarly, in politics and social activism, attempting to sway public opinion or mobilize support through fear mongering can have detrimental effects. Politicians who rely on fear tactics to garner votes or rally support often face backlash from voters who resent being manipulated or misled. In more recent years, this is seen in the example of both the Republican party and Democratic party; as both use issues like immigration or tolerance, respectively, to further appeal to their voters, but in the end contribute to the expanding fracture in American politics. The lack of empathy and information both sides want to share contributes to the resentment of voters. Conversely, leaders who prioritize collaboration and engage in respectful dialogue with diverse stakeholders are more likely to build consensus and achieve meaningful progress on contentious issues. For instance, the civil rights movement in the United States achieved significant victories by mobilizing grassroots activists, fostering alliances across racial and ideological lines, and engaging in nonviolent resistance tactics, rather than resorting to fear tactics or violence.
Moreover, in interpersonal relationships and professional settings, attempting to influence others through fear can erode trust and damage relationships. Managers who rely on fear-based leadership styles may achieve short-term compliance from their employees, but they risk creating toxic work environments characterized by low morale, high turnover rates, and diminished productivity. I, personally, have experienced such in my own work environment; and at the time, that this particular manager was with our company, the turnover, the cycle that starts when an employee is hired and ends when they leave the company, for employees was incredibly low. In fact, I have been the longest-standing employee for only a year. In contrast, leaders who prioritize collaboration, transparency, and empathy are better able to inspire loyalty, creativity, and innovation among their team members. Companies that invest in fostering a culture of collaboration and mutual respect often see higher levels of employee engagement, job satisfaction, and overall organizational success. My job, with the implementation of a new, kinder manager, has started the process of recovery.
Despite what has been said, there are examples of fear mongering creating effective systems. The Mongols when conquering most of the Eurasian continent, in some cases, were able to assert themselves over urban centers without bloodshed because the leaders of said urban centers surrendered before the conquerors could attack. This lack of bloodshed may have prevented some of the resentment they would have garnered had they attacked the city or, as they are notoriously famous for, thrown a plague-infected body over the walls of the city. However, while these systems fostered “involvement”, they still resulted in resentment of the conquered. Thus, the effects of fear mongering lack the sustainability or ability to prevent resentment.
Representative Carlos Curbelo’s assertion that collaboration is more effective than fear tactics in persuading others is supported by ample evidence across various domains. While fear may elicit temporary compliance or action, it often leads to long-term resentment and resistance. Collaboration, on the other hand, builds trust, fosters understanding, and empowers individuals and communities to enact meaningful and sustainable change. By prioritizing collaboration over fear, individuals and organizations can create a more inclusive, equitable, and prosperous society.