The Machiavellian Approach to Management
Whether you love him/her or hate him/her everybody has one…a boss. Most people have their own opinions as to what kind of boss it is that they would like to work for. Most would probably agree that the worst kind of boss is a new boss. This is more than likely due to people’s extraordinary fear of change and the unknown. Whatever the reason, the employee always has the option to leave their position and seek work elsewhere. The same can not be said for subjects of states, who by no action of their own, were to be ruled by a new prince. Just as varied as the ways in which one “inherits” a new boss, likewise new principalities have an abundance of ways of being acquired. Niccolo
…show more content…
Adding fuel to an already explosive situation, by making changes to company policy should be avoided at all costs. However, as Machiavelli suggests that a boss “by birth [has] less need to harm his[/her]” employees, thus putting some of the fears towards the new boss to rest (8).
When a principality is acquired through an acquisition of a non-hostile nature, it is the prince who may have fears. The prince of a “mixed principality” faces more difficulties than those of a hereditary principality. Machiavelli suggests that these “difficulties derive from one natural problem inherent in all new principalities: men gladly change their masters, thinking to better themselves” (8). Additionally, the new prince is, out of necessity, going to offend his new subjects by bringing in “his soldiers and [causing] other countless injuries that are involved in his new conquest” (8). These same problems will face the management of a newly acquired business. Those employees that are retained will automatically look to better their current position by less than honest means. Those “left over” from the old regime may be inclined to steal from the company out of fear that they may soon be replaced. Thus, endangering the already financially unstable situation that an acquisition puts a company in. Therefore, measures must be taken to ensure that the state/company not be lost due to an uprising by the
Niccolo Machiavelli (1810) asks whether it is better for a prince to be loved or feared in The Prince. The purpose of this essay is to argue that it is better for a prince to be feared than loved since the duty of a prince is to remain in power by any means necessary, using the example of Tsar Ivan. Supporting evidence of conflicting viewpoints will be analysed and evaluated throughout to help reach this judgment. The use of contemporary examples: President Trump and Colonel Gaddafi will also be considered to address this question. The study of Tsar Ivan will be instrumental in asserting this hypothesis, showing that for a prince, it is much more important and better to be feared rather than loved.
Richelieu’s section regarding the power of the prince was particularly reminiscent of 15th century Italian political strategist Niccoló Machiavelli’s seminal work, The Prince. The Prince also deals with the management of one’s people, and argued
Machiavelli wrote to gain control of a principality one must be brutal. (I)f you are a prince in possession of a newly acquired state and deem it necessary. . . to annihilate those who can or must attack you. .
To counteract talking about the easiness of governing a hereditary principality, Machiavelli explains why governing a new principality is so hard in his third chapter. In a new principality, people will willingly trade one ruler for another, hoping that the new one will be better than the last. They will take up arms against an unestablished prince, and they may come to realize a revolt is ineffective, but that won’t stop them from causing disorder. This new ruler must also make the people who put him into power realize that he cannot fulfill all of their expectations, but also not be too harsh with them, because he is in their debt. However, after having successfully suppressed a revolt, a prince may then harshly punish rebels and decimate
Citizens become princes by two means: either by skill of Fortune. Machiavelli suggests that those who become the prince through their own strength and skills, will maintain it fairly easily. In contrast, those who become the prince by the arms of others have both good and bad news. Good news is that they will find easy to acquire their states, but bad news is that it will not last too long, or in other words, any unexpected or little obstacle in their way can harm their position
Though the public may be more trustworthy Machiavelli also stated that a prince needed to be harsh in the treatment of both the mixed sectors and the new sectors to avoid rebellions, the prince must be harsh and cautious. It is easier for a prince to hold control after he has already stopped a rebellion by empowering his power. Once the prince takes control of the city, he cannot forget it, for his control can be easily lost.
What must be understood is that the throne is always in jeopardy and someone is always there to try to knock the prince off his pedestal. This is a prime understanding that a prince must have, and fuels the infamous argument by Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli explains that, for the most part, love is very subjective and eventually will subside unless further concessions are made to appease his subjects. In addition, people only care about their personal conveniences and a prince would have to overextend himself if he were to be loved by all. Fear, however, is not subjective and has a universal effect on all his people. Fear can be attained by sporadic violent acts. One must understand, however, that massive amounts of violence can not be done because it would portray the Prince as tyrant, and might stir up his people to revolt against him. The acts must be calculated, concise, and serve a direct purpose not only to his benefit but to the people’s also. Despite what might be assumed, Machiavelli is really developing a principality based around the people, where the Prince’s actions are merely to save his own head from the chopping block.
First let us discuss the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli in is piece “The Prince”. Machiavelli has a very independent controversial way of thinking and portraying his ideal form of governance in this text. The ideal and most effective from of governance for him is not in that of a republic but instead he insists in an autocratic regime. He argues that republics and other forms of government are too weak because of the corruptness of human nature. This book is written as a guide on how a prince should run his state or nation based on how and when he would come into this power. One of his main concerns in which he has been criticized for is his disregard to follow moral values so as to properly run the state, as well as
Every manager must have a set of principles, values, and core beliefs that he must follow. These principles, values, and beliefs make up his philosophy of management. Webster defines philosophy as “the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group.” (Webster) I will be discussing the principles, values, and beliefs I as a manager will have to do my job efficiently. I will also discuss the different biblical beliefs that support my management style.
The Prince is Machiavelli’s guide for ruling and conquering states. Machiavelli elaborates on various ways to acquire principalities and provides the reader with a straightforward guide on how to successfully conquer and maintain control over states. Machiavelli analyses the strengths and flaws of certain paths to conquest, how to maintain a hold on power and the importance of strong arms. Machiavelli sees humans as easily persuaded and simple minded. He believes that all people want to be controlled and guided and those who control do so because their intellect is much greater than the average person. In chapter eleven, Ecclesiastical Principalities, Machiavelli elaborates on the strength and weaknesses
Niccolo Machiavelli based his position of individual power on his book The Prince. The Prince extends Machiavelli’s analysis of how to acquire and maintain political power. There are four types of principalities discussed: hereditary principalities, that are inherited by the ruler through fortune and family royalty, mixed principalities, territories that are annexed to the ruler’s existing territories, new principalities, namely the Papal States belonging to the Catholic church, and new principalities, those states that may be acquired by one’s own power, by the power of others or by the will of the people. There is simplicity for a prince that inherits a state through fortune or the efforts of others due to easy ascent to power, but maintaining the power is more difficult. For a prince that conquers a state through force and power has difficulty conquering the state but has an easy time maintaining the state.
One of the most prevalent themes found in Machiavelli’s The Prince is the theme of fortune. Machiavelli, though in disguise, focuses on the theme of fortune in chapter four and explains how it plays a heavy role in acquiring power. Chapter four begins in introducing states ruled by a prince with barons and states ruled by a prince with appointed ministers, and continues by distinguishing the similarities and differences between the two groups. For states ruled by a prince with hereditary barons, Machiavelli claims that power is easier to acquire as the prince receives help in conquering the
Machiavelli emphasizes that the prince must obtain, retain and expand power (285).The price should maintain the state if he is in power. The prince should have no other goal or thought other than war, organization, and discipline, for this is the only art that is necessary for the one who
Management in business is the coordination of people to accomplish set goals efficiently and effectively. It comprises of planning, organising, staffing, leading, and controlling an organisation. Management itself is also an academic discipline, a social science whose object of study is social organisation in order to accomplish a mutual goal.
The definition of ‘management’ is controversial and subject to much debate. There have been many contradictory views on what the term ‘management’ means and accordingly how one should correctly manage an organisation. These theories have been put forward by several highly regarded management scholars over time. By taking into account past knowledge and contemporary views on management, we are able to ‘’explore how thinking has changed through time’’. (Brooks, 2006). Moreover, businesses have, and can continue to be able to adapt these theories and put them into practice. Successfully applying correct management practices is especially vital in a global business environment which is becoming very competitive. ‘’Most management theories, even those that do not resonate comfortably with the prevailing mood, have attractive and valid elements to them.’’ (Robinson, 2005). For example, some of these theories can be seen flourishing in fast food chains like McDonalds.