HOW NOT TO BE A GOOD MACHIAVELLIAN INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 HOW NOT TO BE A GOOD MACHIAVELLIAN INTRODUCTION Niccolò Machiavelli, over 500 years ago, explained in electrifying detail how a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good. 1 The Prince made a splash then, and the ripples have not subsided. It was, of course, nothing new for rulers to blatantly disregard traditional morality. Renaissance Italians had not only read their Thucydides and their Old Testament, but also they were now living through an era in which some of the most powerful princes including the Popes were also among the cruelest and most corrupt. The shock, rather, was in the unapologetic, even gleeful, endorsement. Few other writers had severed the notions of good political leadership and goodness. Kautilya, an Indian contemporary of Aristotle s, and Han Fei, the greatest of the Chinese legalists a century later, are breathtakingly bereft of human concern in their ruthless rulership manuals. But in Florence, almost two millennia later, these works were unknown. What were known were the mirrors for princes guidebooks authored by the likes of Xenophon, Cicero, Seneca, Aquinas, and (Machiavelli s contemporary) Erasmus--that unfailingly connected good ruling, in its very essence, with goodness. Today, still, it shocks. Hypocrisy, lying, killing, intentional cruelty, and instilling fear in those ruled are, for Machiavelli, not merely permissible, but under certain circumstances are necessary. Yet there is no shortage of gleeful apologists to convince today s corporate princes that Niccolò s slender volume can reveal secrets to their certain success. Indeed, in recent decades there have been no fewer than four books entitled The Corporate Prince, four more 1 Chapter 15

2 HOW NOT TO BE A GOOD MACHIAVELLIAN 2 with the title The New Machiavelli, and countless others with largely indistinguishable titles pairing Machiavelli s name with modern management, leadership, or business. The prize goes to Dial M for Machiavelli: Machiavellian Metaphors for Managers. To what extent is the advice of The Prince apt for today s corporate leaders? There are two types of problems we must address. First, to what extent was the advice of The Prince apt for its original intended audience? If Machiavelli got it wrong then, there is no point in trying to apply it now. And second, if anything that he got right is indeed apt for today s corporate leader, it must be shown to be so by arguing from analogy. Corporations are not principalities. The 21 st century is not the 16 th century. There are many disanalogies, and for every one that is relevant, this thin text, as reinterpreted for today s corporate prince, becomes thinner. In one way, this exercise is itself quintessentially Machiavellian. If he were to align with any recent theory of leadership, it would surely be situational theory, insofar as that theory holds that you can typically commit to what counts as good leadership only after you understand the specifics of the situation. The first six chapters of Machiavelli s twenty-six-chapter book focus on the particular situation that his advice is intended to address, making it clear that the message is explicitly tailored for the political leader whose domain is not a republic but a principality, whose rule is neither hereditary nor linked to another domain by heredity, whose people are accustomed to freedom, and whose ascendance has been due to intervention by an outside army. His effort to respect differences of context continues from there. Even with respect to the quote referenced in the title of this essay, Machiavelli does not stop with a prince must learn how not to be good, but continues, and to use or not use this ability according to circumstances. He flouts Cicero by not only approving of bestial metaphors for princely behavior, but by

3 HOW NOT TO BE A GOOD MACHIAVELLIAN 3 recommending that the prince cultivate the ability to be both as forceful as a lion and as wily as a fox, so as to be fully prepared for unpredictable circumstances. And he notes that various princes get good results by means of a wide variety of stratagems, adding, One cannot lay down a definite rule concerning these choices unless one examines the particulars of the states in question. 2 So, true to Machiavelli, we are examining the particulars of today s corporate world to determine whether any rules of The Prince can be laid down here. Not only is this approach Machiavellian, but such a critical approach is so valuable that it is hard to find a plausible argument against it. When we fail, as leaders, scholars, or everyday human beings, to take note of relevant differences in circumstances, it is not because we believe that all reasoning is deductive, but it is because our inductive reasoning in particular, our analogical reasoning--is imperfect. 3 Machiavelli, alas, seems to fall prey himself to this very imperfection. A hallmark of Machiavelli s style is his constant appeal to historical examples of princes whose successes and failures illustrate the aptness of his advice often pairing an ancient example, such as Caesar, Moses, or Cyrus, with a recent example, such as Ferdinand of Aragon, Francesco Sforza, or Cesare Borgia. Francesco Guicciardini, Machiavelli s brilliant mentor and friend, sparred with him on this very point, criticizing in particular a deficit of subtlety and a surplus of wishful thinking in Machiavelli s application, in particular, of ancient examples to their own Florentine world. In his Ricordi, Guicciardini is likely thinking of The Prince when he writes, 2 Chapter 20 3 For a thoroughgoing account of analogical reasoning, see David Carl Wilson, A Guide to Good Reasoning (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1999)

4 HOW NOT TO BE A GOOD MACHIAVELLIAN 4 It is a great error to speak of the things of this world absolutely and to deal with them, as it were, by the book. In nearly all things one must make distinctions and exceptions because of differences in their circumstances. These circumstances are not covered by one and the same rule. Nor can these distinctions and exceptions be found written in books. They must be taught by discretion. 4 This paper, thus, is even more Guicciardinian than it is Machiavellian. 5 SECTION ONE: DOES MACHIAVELLI MEAN WHAT HE SAYS? Summary. This section discusses aspects of The Prince that make it difficult to take it entirely seriously. The immediate purpose of the book was to grab the attention of its dedicatee, the new Medici ruler of Florence, Lorenzo, and his uncle, the new Pope, Leo. Only a year before he wrote it, Machiavelli had been humiliatingly fired from his position as de facto Secretary of State, unjustly imprisoned and tortured, and banished from Florence. This was to be his way back in. Lorenzo and Leo were the readers over his shoulder as he wrote. He wanted them to be galvanized by his vision that the ruler of Florence and the Pope would join forces and together bring about the unification of Italy for the first time in a millennium. 6 And, believing them to share or at least to value--his amoralism, he aimed to convince them that his shrewd advice was indispensable to their success. Machiavelli never minded if his clarity or consistency was impeded by the use of an outrageous example, metaphor, or turn of phrase. This is part of what makes reading him so delicous, but it is never more simultaneously frustrating than in The Prince, which is one big roll of the dice to rivet the attention of the two Medici princes. (His otherwise inexplicable apotheosis of 4 Guicciardini, Maxims and Reflections, tr. Mario Domandi Harper and Row 1965 p, 42 5 See also Mark Phillips, Francesco Guicciardini: The Historian's Craft (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), p. 84. Also, edited and introduced by Cecil Grayson, and translated by Margaret Grayson Francesco Guicciardini: Selected Writings, (Oxford University Press, 1965), p Kautilya, two millennia earlier, similarly argued that all offensive behaviors should end once all of India had been conquered.

5 HOW NOT TO BE A GOOD MACHIAVELLIAN 5 the sociopath Cesare Borgia is readily explained by this, as well as several other features of the book.) The fact remains, however, that after we turn the volume down, the essential amoral, socially skillful, results-driven message of The Prince continues to be consistent with the rest of his work, including the Discourses, his plays, and his letters. The only deep conviction that Machiavelli omits from this book is his lifelong commitment to republicanism, and his dream that the Medici s success, with him at their side, would be climaxed by the conversion of Italy into a secular republic. Ever the man of action, he needed to get the job first. He could worry later about changing the world. SECTION TWO: IS THERE ADVICE THAT IS JUST WRONG? Summary. First, an important driver of Machiavelli s advice is his view of human nature, a negative view that has much in common with Glaucon s view in Plato s Republic and with Hobbes. It drives the mistrust and hypocrisy so central to The Prince, it even drives his explicit commitment to republicanism in the Discourses, and it is explicitly linked to his famous advice that it is better for the prince to be feared than to be loved (which elsewhere in The Prince, like so much else, is contradicted). I consider this, and I consider the extent to which a more optimistic view would result in different advice for any leader in any setting. Second, an important motivator for the leader, Machiavelli makes clear, is personal glory. It is possible that he emphasizes this because he believes it will resonate with Lorenzo and Leo; he is paying close attention to the side of his bread that he hopes they will butter. But this is no reason to think that he doesn t mean it. His notion of glory has some nuance glory, rightly so-called, cannot result from corruption, nor can it result from what he calls criminal behavior; it results from successfully doing whatever must be done in order to secure the long-term security and well-being of the principality.

6 HOW NOT TO BE A GOOD MACHIAVELLIAN 6 I consider this, and whether Aristotle s analysis of the related notion of honor is superior, and the extent to which this bears on the advice in The Prince. SECTION THREE: WHAT ABOUT THE DISANALOGIES? Summary. A 16 th century principality is not a 21 st century corporation. (And one 21 st century corporation is not another 21 st century corporation!). Which disanalogies are relevant to The Prince, and what does that imply about its leadership advice? I discuss the following disanalogies: 16 TH CENTURY PRINCIPALITY 21 ST CENTURY CORPORATION The prince is the lawgiver, law The CEO and the corporation are enforcer, and law arbiter. subject to the laws of the land. (The CEO, at most, can introduce polices that are binding solely within the corporation, though rarely unilaterally does so.) The prince has a monopoly on The CEO is prohibited from all violence, both internally (overseeing violence, except for self-defense. any policing) and externally (The CEO can only impose internal (overseeing the army). penalties by firing or by reducing rights or responsibilities.) The prince is the legitimator of any The CEO must gain formal legitimacy activities in the principality. (The from the state and informal prince does need to keep the people legitimacy within the broader society. from hating him, which is a type of legitimacy.)

7 HOW NOT TO BE A GOOD MACHIAVELLIAN 7 The principality is typically geographically contiguous, and all within the area are members who thereby share a sense of common identity. Entrance is usually involuntary and exit is usually difficult or impossible. The prince is formally accountable to nobody. The typical member of the principality neither reports to the prince nor is in the pay of the prince. The goals of a principality typically include safety from both internal and external threats, and often extend to health and other human flourishing. The corporation s members typically live in a way that is interspersed with many other people; any sense of identity they share with their neighbors is on some other basis. Entrance and exit are voluntary (and sometimes mutual) The CEO is typically an agent of the principal, and is formally accountable, in some sense, to a board, to the owner or shareholders, and to the state. Typical members of the corporation at least indirectly report to, and are in the pay of, the CEO. (So, the CEO s leverage point differs from the prince s.) The goals of a corporation are typically solvency, legitimacy, and mission-accomplishment (to the extent that the mission of the corporation transcends solvency, as is often the case)

8 HOW NOT TO BE A GOOD MACHIAVELLIAN 8 I show how these disanalogies further undermine the advice about hypocrisy, fear, violence, and deception; rather, they suggest a completely different sort of advice. SECTION FOUR: WHAT ABOUT THE ANALOGIES? Summary. A 16 th century principality and a 21 st century corporation are, nevertheless, organizations with cultures, goals, resources, and leaders. Which similarities call for advice that works in both contexts? I discuss the following analogies: 16 TH CENTURY PRINCIPALITY & 21 ST CENTURY CORPORATION Leaders have responsibilities and rights that pertain to setting and advancing the organization s goals, which pertains to both culture and resources. The responsibility is more fundamental than the rights. The leader, with greater and more complex responsibilities, is in the position of having the most acute conflicts of responsibilities. The rights present the opportunity for corruption. Entropy is the enemy, so, without appropriate infusion of energy, disorder will ensure. There is uncertainty about the future about the vicissitudes of fortune-- making it essential that relevant knowledge be maximized and that good decisions be made. Support of the people increases chances of success. I show how these analogies preserve much of Machiavelli s advice about handling flatterers, focusing on outcomes (or, as many have described it, the end justifying the means), taking fortune into one s own hands, being prepared to make trade-offs with respect to conflicting obligations, being bold, avoiding

9 HOW NOT TO BE A GOOD MACHIAVELLIAN 9 making the people hate you, encouraging disagreement (in the Discourses), renewing institutions regularly (in the Discourses note that these two pieces of advice would not have been attractive to the Medici s, and thus do not appear in The Prince). CONCLUSION TBD