Lessons from "The Prince"

I'm sure others have written more and written better reflections on how Machiavelli's The Prince might apply to their particular field. And I'm somewhat chagrined to admit that I've never read the whole book cover to cover. So what am I learning from this reading?

1) The competitive rivalries of Renaissance Italy still seem pretty relevant to today's world.

2) For most of my life, on the other hand, I would have said that "hereditary monarchies" have little relevance to contemporary America. Then we started the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (?) years, and that's made me wonder whether we really are that different some 500 years later. Working at an institution named "John Brown" with lots of continuing influence by the remaining "John Browns" reinforces that thought. In some ways, the old city-states are now the "family businesses" over which the heriditary "monarchs" retain great influence in large part because they established the company culture, and the organization reveres them for it.

3) Conquering a "country" that is used to living under its own "laws" reminds me a lot of the situation confronting a new President or Provost of a univesrity in which faculty are used to doing their own things and are therefore fairly reluctant as a group to carry out much change. "A thousand points of NO" is the way I believe the USC President in The Contrarian Leader described it. In those circumstances, Machiavelli suggests "laying them waste" or residing with them. The former not being much in favor in our 21st century democratic culture, that means that any new leader of a highly individualistic group needs to spend a lot time getting to know that group, becoming one of "them," before he or she makes any major changes. Interestingly, this is exactly the advice that modern leadership and business books usually make that hiring outsiders as leaders typically fails, except in those circumstances where the new person spends a lot of time getting to know the organizational culture first.

4) It's even easier to "rule" when you've become the boss of your own group through your own skill and hard work. That again would make sense with the modern organizational advice that it's better to hire from within and that if you want to experiment with significant change, it's much easier to do by setting up an entirely new unit instead of trying to alter substantially the existing organization.

5) Here's one I've referred to a lot in my own life. "Injuries should be done all together, so that being less tasted, they will give less offence. Benefits should be granted little by little, so that they may be better enjoyed." In other words, if you've got bad news, a budget downturn, for example, get out all of the bad news in one fell swoop. But if you've got good news, then dribble it out bit by bit. Easier to say than to do, but it's been my experience that this insight is very true of human and organizational psychology.

6) And then there's the famous quote that a prince should have no other aim or study than war. But I think the more revealing and appropriate quote for our contemporary purposes is that
"when princes think more of luxury than of arms, they lose their states." A contemporary business study, for example, shows that when CEOs are building or remodeling homes, the performance of the companies they lead declines. In general, the bigger the homes, the worse the organizational performance. In our contemporary context, this quote is typically translated as "grow or die," which doesn't have to be equated with growth in quantity, but can be associated with growth in quality as well. If you're not always striving to get better, others who are will eventually pass you by.

7) Another famous quote is that "it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good." As harsh as that sounds, it's probably not so different than our biblical injunction to be "wise as a serpent" because Machiavelli then goes on to say that the prince should use this knowledge as it is appropriate, not that the prince should always act with evil intentions.

8) Perhaps the most recognized Machiavelli quote comes from chapter 17. "It is better to be feared than loved." But then Machiavelli goes on to explain that being hated is even worse, so "fear" in this context is more like "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." It has more to do with awe and respect. A prince can be thought cruel and harsh, but not rapacious. Which means that taking the occasional "life" (translated, perhaps, as firing someone) is warranted, but taking people's property (reducing "budgets" and/or "salary" while you the leader continue to live in comparative luxury) is what will really doom your leadership. I'm always reminded of the historical discussions regarding revolutions is that they do not typically occur because people are oppressed, especially if they have been so for some time. They occur when large numbers have something taken away from them that they feel is "theirs."

9) Of course, there's the usual political advice that even if you personally don't have all of the wonderful traits people might want (which Machiavelli defines as "mercy, faith, integrity, humanity, and religion" and notes that no one can really possess all of them in great measure), then at least you have to appear to have those gifts. Appearance, in the public realm, matters more than substance.

10) Since the biggest danger for the leader is to become hated, "princes should let the carrying out of unpopular duties devolve on others, and bestow favours themselves." Unless, of course, people come to see you as the "weak" leader who has to have others do your dirty work for you. In which case, they'll "fear" the person doing the unpopular duties and "hate" you. Pithy quotes are always difficult to implement, especially when they contradict other pithy quotes.

11) Leaders gain their reputations from great causes, great prowess, and firm decisions (being a "great friend" or a "great enemy"). The one I've been struggling with the most is the "great cause." How do we define that greatness? We have various conversations with faculty members and other constituents, and the responses are all over the map. Even the top academic administrators can't come to some consensus on that score. I'm still pondering this one.

12) A leader has to be completely devoted to his ministers and vice versa. The USC President, obviously a student of Machiavelli, makes a similar argument. Of course, Machiavelli has also contended that a "new" prince may have to "lay waste" to the allies who brought him to power, because there's no way that he can satisfy all of their demands and preserve the state he is now ruling. Once again, this one's easier to read than to implement.

13) Princes need to be great listeners and seekers of advice, but only from a limited group and only when he asks for it, otherwise he'll appear indecisive and get overwhelmed with contrasting perspectives. Guess you'd say that this is the "representative" model of governance as opposed to the "democratic" model? One of the complaints about Bush is that he's allowed Cheney too much of a private, back-door advisory capacity that has made him appear weak and has disaffected the rest of the "ministers."

14) Finally, all else being equal, it's better for a leader to be "impetuous" than "cautious." This is similar to "fortune favors the bold." Of course, this advice runs counter to "first, do no harm" and lots of other quotes. Since I clearly tend toward the "impetuous," I agree with Machiavelli's argument, but as with much else in this short book, and as Machiavelli himself frequently notes, a lot will depend on the circumstances in which the prince finds himself.