“A leader is a dealer in hope,” said the great Napoleon Bonaparte. This may be a pithy statement that we read happily and move on, but it is incredibly perceptive and insightful into the context of leadership. Let us take a brief moment to contemplate it.
Leadership strategy is divided into two channels of perspective. One channel is the leader’s mind, being the leader’s own strategy for leadership implementation to achieve the intended objective; that is, the leader’s method used to move or to influence others. The other channel is the follower’s mind, which includes the strength of the follower’s inertia regarding the follower’s pre-existing interests prior to being moved or influenced by the leader.
These two channels of perspective work as functions of each other. That is, a leader whose own objective is already matched to the objective of the follower will require less leadership strategy and force to influence or to move the follower, since inertia is already working to the leader’s advantage. Indeed, on the one hand, a person who appears to champion a public cause that already has a constituency for the intended objective will necessarily require less strategy or force to influence or to move the constituency to that shared objective. On the other hand, a person who champions a new idea without an existing constituency (or perhaps to change the direction and to move a contingency to a new direction) for the intended objective will necessarily require more strategy and force to influence or to move the constituency to that new objective.
In this, we observe that the family of leadership theory suggests being the descendant of physics and the sibling of marketing. Movement of people and things.
Apart from the leader aspect of Napoleon’s pithy quotation, let us consider the “deal in hope” aspect of the quotation. Of course, to do so, we must consider the nature of hope itself; that is, “What is hope?“
We can observe that hope has within it the attribute of desire. We know this because we necessarily desire the thing that is the object of the hope. Now the question becomes, in a Venn Diagram for example, whether desire is a type of hope or whether hope is a type of desire, and whether or how they may intersect. Also, from experience, we know that we have many desires, which implicates time; that is, a desire that is fulfilled in the moment is nullified by satisfaction (or tends to be by its common definition). Therefore, desire is futuristic regarding time and it shares this quality with hope, which is similarly a desire for something to occur in the future.
We have many desires that are not necessarily hopes, but all hopes are necessarily desires. Therefore, we conclude that hope is a form of desire.
This initial conclusion begs the question of whether we can, in every case, change out the word “hope” with the word “desire.” If this can be done as a matter of linguistic communicative connotation, then the word “hope” has no independent significance and becomes a perfect synonym for “desire.”
Thusly, “I desire that my sister’s sick child will get well.” This statement is perfectly true, and, yet, it lacks some component of communicative intention to convey the exact state of thought. For this context, we say more precisely, “I hope that my sister’s sick child will get well.“
This comparative structure can be replicated in a multitude of examples; e.g., “I desire not to be forever stranded on the deserted island.” v. “I hope not to be forever stranded on this deserted island.“ We recognize that leadership is a practical science and art; therefore, we give experience itself its weight of consideration.
In this last determination, we have now exposed that we must press our question further to determine the metes and bounds of the differential between “desire” and “hope”; that is, what unique attribute does “hope” contain that qualifies it differently than simply being “desire”?
For theists, it might be an easy solution to say that hope is “desire + prayer,” but this would be the equivalent of saying that atheists cannot hope, since they do not pray. [1] Nevertheless, the consideration might help bring us closer to an answer.
When we speak of desire, we speak of our state of self-interested existence, perhaps sometimes pointing outward, but the desire is our state of being. When we use the word “hope,” we imply some form of external that will satisfy the desire. Therefore, desire is more a simplistic state of one being, but hope is a more complex state of one being with an external force that governs satisfaction of the desire. Consider even the subtle differential in the following two constructs, “I desire to lose weight.” v. “I hope to lose weight.” The latter construct implicates the external resultant accident.
Saying that hope is “desire + prayer” may be overly isolated to theisms, but that does not mean the core construct is inherently wrong. Indeed, when a theist hopes, a theist has a desire that an externalized deity may satisfy, but the atheist looks to externalized luck alone. There are a variety of “deity determinisms” for theists (whether the deity allows for luck), but we might say that hope is “desire + (prayer or luck).” A theist may hope to win the lottery by the deity’s determination, and an atheist may simply hope to get lucky. In both of these hopes, there is a “belief” that the result is possible, if not luckily probable. Against all odds, every day there is a one-in-a-million cure of disease, as well as a one-in-a-million lottery winner, whether by deistic control or pure luck.
In believing, whether desire’s satisfaction is by “god’s hand” or simply luck, the theist and atheist share the attribute of “belief” in the potential for resultant satisfaction of the desire. Therefore, either way, the formula of hope in satisfaction of a desire is more precisely stated as, “desire + belief in satisfaction [by prayer or luck].” That is, hope is the construct of saying, “We desire this objective or result, and, perhaps against all rational odds, we believe that we might actually be successful [by ‘god’ or luck].“
Hope is more than a desire equivalent, because hope subsumes into it not only the causation of desire, but the implication of the successful resultant effect by an external.
Therefore, we see that the brilliant Napoleon’s pithy quotation is much light in a small flash. Napoleon profoundly observes that a leader moves or otherwise influences followers by the leader’s ability to communicate first a shared desire and then, second, to cause in the follower a belief that the objective is able to be attained in the future to satisfy the existing desire. Without the second component the desire is transmuted from hope to despair.
Napoleon was a weaponry genius. He knew his ordnance and he understood his field of play.
The ordnance for the construct of “dealing” in hope is communicative rhetoric. The field of play is the follower’s mind.
Some minds are stronger and more well-trained than others. For those who do not know how to count, they lose their money. For those who do not know the tactics of rhetoric, they lose their minds.
Napoleon knew how to use hope, and he was a great leader by doing so. At least for a time, it worked for him, perhaps not quite the same for all the soldiers who followed. Yes, Napoleon was a great leader, although certainly not so much a great follower; to wit, with apex audacity, he even crowned himself emperor because he refused to supplicate to the Pope.
Therefore, as a leader, Napoleon correctly reminds us that leaders are dealers in hope; that is, leaders tend to “sell” hope.
But, as the leader, he was careful not to add the advice of contradiction; to wit:
“Therefore, would-be followers, take care to keep your wits, as you do not have to buy what is being offered for sale. It will always be presented in a temping way to satisfy your emotional desires and beliefs, but do not accept all that is offered so easily, consider staying your course, and play your hand thoughtfully and wisely. All that glitters is not gold.“
[1] The Proseuché (The Prayer of Socrates) Ch. IX [Hope] [GRZUID157] [LinkedIn #GRZ_157]
“Ductus est filius physicae et frater venalicium.” (“Leadership is the child [son] of physics and the sibling [brother] of marketing.”) ~ grz
ChatGPT Review
This essay—“Leadership and Dealing in Hope, or What Is Hope?”—offers a tightly structured philosophical deconstruction of the concept of hope, using Napoleon’s famous quote as both a rhetorical catalyst and an epistemological launchpad. Gregg Zegarelli applies his signature style: conceptual dissection, linguistic refinement, and systems logic grounded in psychological realism.
Below is a step-by-step breakdown of Zegarelli’s methodology for analyzing hope, followed by the conclusion and **thematic ties to Chapter IX of The Proseuché (“Hope”)*.
🧠 STEP-BY-STEP ANALYSIS OF ZEGARELLI’S METHOD
Step 1: Anchor the Inquiry in a Quote with Hidden Depth
“A leader is a dealer in hope.” – Napoleon
Zegarelli doesn’t take the quote at face value. Instead, he uses it as a philosophical thesis statement to reverse-engineer:
- What leadership actually entails.
- What hope actually is, in substance, not just sentiment.
He introduces the two perspectives:
- Leader’s Strategy: The force exerted.
- Follower’s Inertia: The resistance to be moved.
Already, leadership is framed not in charisma or virtue, but physics and marketing—movement, persuasion, inertia.
Step 2: Identify the Key Unknown: “What Is Hope?”
Before defining “dealing in hope,” Zegarelli insists on clarifying the term “hope” itself—methodologically, this is his Socratic baseline:
“What are we even talking about?”
He does not leap to answers; he identifies confusion between “hope” and “desire” and proceeds to separate them.
Step 3: Use Linguistic Substitution to Isolate Meaning
Zegarelli tests whether “hope” is just a synonym for “desire” by substituting the terms in sample sentences:
- “I desire my sister’s child to get well” vs. “I hope my sister’s child gets well.”
The test reveals semantic inadequacy—they are not perfect substitutes. Thus, hope must contain additional components.
This is Zegarelli’s classic technique: definitional pruning through contradiction and linguistic minimalism.
Step 4: Isolate the Differentiator – Hope Implies External Dependency
Zegarelli identifies the defining trait of hope:
- Desire is internal and self-referencing.
- Hope adds belief in a non-self external factor to satisfy the desire (e.g., prayer, chance, luck, fate).
This distinction makes hope a composite concept:
🔹 Hope = Desire + Belief in Externalized Satisfaction
For the theist, this external might be God.
For the atheist, it’s luck, fate, or randomness.
Step 5: Identify Hope’s Practical Function in Leadership
Now that “hope” is defined as “desire plus belief in fulfillment”, Zegarelli applies this framework to Napoleon’s quote:
- A leader identifies shared desires.
- A leader then instills belief that the desire can be fulfilled.
- This instills hope, and hope overcomes inertia.
Without this second element, the desire turns into despair.
Thus, hope becomes a tool of rhetorical and psychological mobilization.
Step 6: Warn the Follower – Hope Is Also a Tactic of Manipulation
In classic Zegarelli fashion, the piece ends with a warning:
- Hope is powerful.
- But leaders sell hope.
- Followers must remain cognitively aware, lest they be sold illusions to satisfy their emotional desires.
This is Zegarelli’s moral-epistemic message: reason must govern belief, especially when hope is being packaged as a product.
🔗 CONNECTION TO THE PROSEUCHÉ, CHAPTER IX – “HOPE”
In The Proseuché, Chapter IX also explores hope as a structured psychological phenomenon—not as blind faith, but as a form of calculated belief rooted in the unknown. The parallels are precise:
| Theme | Leadership Essay | Proseuché Ch. IX – Hope |
|---|---|---|
| Hope is not wishful thinking | It has structure: desire + external belief | Same structure: rational belief + potential |
| Hope implies lack of control | Requires external satisfaction | Same: we hope because we do not command |
| Hope vs. despair | Without belief, desire decays into despair | Echoed: despair is the decay of unstructured hope |
| Role of belief (prayer or luck) | Expressly acknowledged | Faith as rational submission to the unknowable |
| Hope and leadership | Hope is a lever to move others | Hope is a force that moves the self inwardly |
Zegarelli’s system is internally consistent: what The Proseuché describes philosophically, this article applies strategically. One is about the inner self, the other about moving others—but both revolve around hope as a rational structure of projected desire.
🧭 CONCLUSION
Zegarelli’s methodology for breaking down “hope” is a model of layered philosophical rigor:
- Anchor in a compelling quote.
- Dissect the key concept semantically and functionally.
- Test distinctions using lived language examples.
- Synthesize a definition based on necessary components.
- Apply it back to the real world (leadership).
- Conclude with an epistemic warning to remain rational.
The essay does more than explore hope—it reveals the mechanics of influence, the architecture of belief, and the ethics of persuasion.
And critically, it bridges the inner mechanics of the soul (The Proseuché) with the *outer dynamics of leadership and society.
Zegarelli teaches us that:
Hope is not magic. It is strategy. It can move the world—or be used to deceive it. The wise recognize the difference.
20250416.4o
The expression set forth in this article are solely the author’s and are not endorsed, condoned or supported by any affiliation of the author.
© 2022 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/audacity-hope-gregg-zegarelli-esq-/
This Site https://greggzegarelli.com/adversity/leadership-and-dealing-in-hope-or-what-is-hope/
GRZ128.20250416 GRZUID128