A note on herd morality (Nietzshe) in regard to MBA and Housing Studies dissertation projects

A note on herd morality (Nietzshe) in regard to MBA and Housing Studies dissertation projects (information from perplexity.ai)

My question 1: "What are the underlying ideas of the herd morality of Nietzshe in the context of management ethics?"

The reply: "Nietzsche’s idea of herd morality is that most moral codes express the needs of the group for safety, predictability, and mediocrity, and therefore suppress the strong, creative individual.

Core ideas of herd morality

• Morality expresses herd needs: value judgements arise from the need of the community to preserve itself, so “what is useful to the herd” becomes “what is good” for everyone.
  ​

• Inversion of values: traits of strength, independence, creativity and “great health” are rebranded as evil, while weakness, conformity, humility and obedience are elevated as good.

• Ressentiment and revenge: the weak, unable to dominate directly, band together and construct a morality that morally condemns the higher, more powerful types, thereby achieving a “communal feeling of power”.

• Claim to universality: herd morality speaks as if it were “morality itself and nothing else is morality”, denying that its standards are contingent, historical and interest‑laden.

• Levelling and mediocrity: by punishing what stands out and rewarding safety and comfort, herd values drag everything “higher and extraordinary” down towards the average, risking cultural nihilism and loss of greatness.
  ​

Link to Nietzsche’s master–slave morality

• Slave (herd) morality is the morality of the weak, reactive, and dependent, centering on utility, pity, equality and avoidance of suffering.

• Master morality is the self‑affirming ethos of strong, noble individuals who directly value power, excellence, courage and creative self‑expression, not conformity or utility for others.

• Herd morality emerges historically when the oppressed reinterpret their impotence as moral superiority, turning their inability to act (meekness, patience) into “virtues”, and the masters’ active power into “vice”.

Implications for management ethics

Translated into organizations, herd morality appears wherever ethics is reduced to protecting the average interests of the collective by restraining excellence, risk‑taking and individuality.

1. Ethics as pure conformity and control

• Codes of conduct that are treated as absolute and identical for all, regardless of role, talent or responsibility, echo the herd’s claim: “I am morality itself.”
  ​

• “Being ethical” becomes synonymous with never rocking the boat, never challenging consensus, and strictly following procedure, even when procedures block innovation or integrity (e.g. whistleblowing).

Example: A firm labels any deviation from standard process as unethical “non‑compliance”, even when the deviation would better serve stakeholders, because its highest value is herd‑level safety, not excellence.

2. Levelling down high performers

• Herd morality in management dislikes strongly differentiated individuals; it therefore pressures high performers to become more “like everyone else” in style, ambition, and values.
  ​

• HR and ethics practices may implicitly punish people who take bold ownership (e.g. maverick innovators, dissenting voices) under the language of “not a team player” or “too individualistic”.

Example: A creative manager who speaks uncomfortable truths about a failing product is morally criticized for “negativity” or “arrogance”, while those who keep quiet are praised as “professional” and “nice”.

3. Overemphasis on care, equality and harmony

• Nietzsche sees modern moralities of pity and equality as herd‑oriented: they prioritize reducing suffering and maintaining harmony over cultivating strength and greatness.

• In management ethics, this surfaces as sentimental “caring leadership” or “servant leadership” that idealizes self‑sacrifice and emotional labour, but can drift into ressentiment and passive aggression when real power or inequality is at stake.
  ​

Example: Leaders constantly emphasize “we are a family” and “no one is above anyone”, but resent and subtly undermine genuinely outstanding colleagues who threaten the comfortable equilibrium.

4. Ethics as ressentiment in organizations

• Ressentiment appears when those who feel powerless cannot express conflict openly, so they moralize their resentment, framing more successful colleagues as “immoral” or “undeserving”.

• Organizationally, this may appear as ethics talk used to attack or limit high achievers (e.g. “too ambitious”, “too strategic”, “too visible”), instead of addressing structural power issues directly.

Example: Middle managers lacking influence respond to a visionary leader not by arguing strategy, but by accusing them of “ego” and “lack of humility”, turning a competence clash into a moral indictment.

Rethinking management ethics with Nietzsche

Nietzsche does not offer a ready‑made business ethics, but he suggests critical questions managers and scholars can ask about any ethical framework:

• Whose interests does this “ethical” code actually serve: the preservation of the organizational herd, or the flourishing of strong, creative individuals as well?

• Does this ethics allow space for exceptional responsibility, courage and rule‑breaking when needed, or does it flatten everyone into the same moral expectations?
  ​

• Are appeals to equality, fairness and care being used to mask ressentiment toward those who excel, or to avoid confronting real conflicts and power imbalances?

A Nietzschean reading of management ethics thus treats “ethical culture” with suspicion when it primarily enforces safety, sameness and comfort, and invites the design of ethical systems that protect basic decency while still making room for excellence, risk‑taking and genuinely higher standards of responsibility."

My question 2: "How does this discussion here inform MBA and Housing Studies dissertation project works, with regard to research issue identification, research objective formulation and research findings discussion?"

The reply: "Nietzsche's critique of herd morality offers a powerful philosophical lens for sharpening MBA and Housing Studies dissertations, particularly by exposing conformist assumptions in research design and interpretation. This aligns with your pragmatism-focused projects on Hong Kong public housing and AI applications, where questioning "herd-like" consensus can refine pragmatic inquiry.

​

Research Issue Identification

Herd morality warns against accepting prevailing narratives as "obviously true" without genealogical critique, helping you spot research gaps hidden by groupthink.

• Challenge media-reported or policy "issues" (e.g., HK public housing overcrowding) as potential herd constructs that moralize symptoms (safety, equality) while ignoring deeper power dynamics or elite interests.

• Identify gaps where "ethical consensus" stifles inquiry: for instance, uncritical praise of AI in housing as "fair and caring" may mask ressentiment against innovative disruptions.
  ​

• Ask: Does this issue serve the "herd" (bureaucratic preservation, mediocrity) or enable excellence (e.g., bold AI pilots for resident flourishing)? This yields sharper, originality-boosting issues like "How does HKHA's ethical rhetoric conceal policy uncertainty driving herding in estate upgrades?"

Research Objective Formulation

Formulate objectives that reject slave-morality platitudes (pity, uniformity) in favor of master-morality virtues (strength, creativity, self-overcoming), fitting pragmatism's "what works for flourishing" ethos.

​

• Avoid herd objectives like vague "improve equity"; instead, target exceptional outcomes: "Evaluate how AI interventions overcome herd-level resistance to foster higher residential excellence in HK estates."

• Structure as ranked pursuits: primary objective critiques herd values in policy (e.g., levelling down high-performers), secondary tests alternatives via mixed methods.
  ​

• Pragmatic tie-in: Objectives become testable experiments in value-creation, e.g., "Develop metrics distinguishing 'herd comfort' from genuine life-quality elevation via AI," enhancing academic and HA-practical value.

Research Findings Discussion

In discussion chapters, deploy Nietzsche to interpret findings beyond superficial "success/failure," revealing how herd dynamics shape results and implications—crucial for your MBA/Housing templates.

Stage	Herd Morality Pitfall	Nietzsche-Informed Approach	Example for Your HK Housing/ AI Work
Interpreting Data	Consensus bias: findings "must" affirm equality/safety norms.	Genealogical critique: Trace if results reflect ressentiment (e.g., resident complaints as moral revenge on "disruptive" AI).	AI pilot boosts efficiency but faces "ethical" pushback - ”discuss as herd preserving mediocrity vs. master-morality innovation.
Linking to Literature	Passive lit review echoing dominant views.	Expose slave values in prior studies (e.g., caring leadership as disguised weakness).	Contrast your pragmatism findings with herd-biased housing policy lit, arguing for value-inversion toward strength.
Implications	Safe, incremental recommendations.	Bold prescriptions for overman-like flourishing (e.g., reward rule-breakers).	Recommend HA policies protecting AI pioneers from herd ethics, scaling pilots for 2026/ 27 amid shortages.

 

This framework elevates discussions from descriptive to philosophically rigorous, positioning your dissertation as a critique of institutional morality while delivering pragmatic tools."

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.