machiavelli leadership essay

Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and leadership

“The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli is a historic work dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the former ruler of Florence. It was written in 1513 Florence, Italy, but published only in 1532. This work is a kind of a textbook for those who want to maintain power and gain control. “The Prince” includes theoretical interpretation of the role of a ruler, and gives practical advice how to keep power and maintain strict control. At the beginning of the 21 st century, recommendations and pieces of advice given 5 centuries ago are still of vital importance, because the qualities of a leader are universal and cannot be influence by regime, freedom of rights or political situation.

In his book, Machiavelli states that the main criterion for the Prince is to be outstanding personality. Present day leadership is based on a function of personality. It is also viewed in terms of the role of the leaders and their ability to achieve effective performance from others. Leadership is related to motivation, interpersonal behavior and to the process of communication. “…above all a prince must scheme to give himself the fame of a great man and of excellent judgment in every action. A prince is also esteemed when he is a true friend and a true enemy, that is to say, when he comes out in favor of one against another without hesitation.” (Machiavelli, 1984). Leadership may also be based on the per­sonal qualities, or charisma, of the leader and the manner in which authority is exercised. This view of leadership gives rise to the question of ‘born’ or ‘natural’ leaders. In reality, no one is born a perfect leader. A person can have inclination to lead other, but naturally, leadership skills are developed through life experience and training.

On the other hand, leadership is also focus on the role of the leader in terms of the relationship with followers and the adoption of a particular style of leadership. Machiavelli shares the same opinion supposing that not all princes are leaders: “like all other things of nature that are born and grow fast, cannot have their roots and connections, so that the first adverse circumstances extinguish them” (Machiavelli, 1984) .

In “The Prince” Machiavelli describes that successful leadership is when influence brings about behavior and results that were intended by the leader. In contrast there come princes who cannot command “because they do not have forces that might be friendly and faithful to them” (Machiavelli, 1984). This example shows that leadership is more than just adherence to a formal role prescription. It is more than eliciting mechanical behavior which results from a supe­rior-subordinate relationship in a hierarchical structure. Effective leadership means successful functional behavior and the achievement of group goals. Today, a leader may be imposed, formally appointed or elected, chosen informally, or emerge naturally through the demands of the situation or the wishes of the group. This was impossible five centuries ago, but there were some leaders who had been chosen informally.

Nevertheless, the statement that leadership may also be exercised through greater knowledge or exper­tise reflects the qualities of a contemporary world leader. This argument is the most important one, which underlines the importance of the book in general. It means that a leader should have substantial knowledge be able to resolve difficult tasks. Good leaders must be able to cope with complex changes. Machiavelli describes this using the example of hate: “As Princes cannot escape being hated by some, they should, in the first place, endeavor not to be hated by a class; failing in which, they must do all they can to escape the hatred of that class which is stronger” (Machiavelli, 1984 ).

Machiavelli pays attention to morals and personal values of the Prince. Probably, this is the most controversial part of the work which argues that a prince should follow the principle of his own benefit; he should not made friends, because they can betray him, etc. The contemporary leader should keep morals and be an example for his followers, because only in this case the leader will be recognized. Nevertheless, contemporary critics suppose, “Being led by one’s heart instead of one’s head is, from the Machiavellian view, a fatal error” (Parallels: “Machiavellian” Politics Today, n.d.).

On the other hand, some concepts expressed by Machiavelli cannot be used by a contemporary leader, because they are inapplicable to the concepts of liberty and freedom. Machiavelli advises that an effective leader can use his position to gain special perks. He supposes that, very often, the ruler must decide what is good and what is bad, and do evil rather than good if it benefits him. The same interpretation concerns love and hate:  “Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli, 1984). The article “Parallels: “Machiavellian” Politics Today” (n.d.) states that “Anything that diverts the leader’s attention from the power he needs to achieve these goals is probably not worth pursuing”. The Prince should follow a liberal way of ruling, but only if it does not weaken his influence on the state and his power: “if you want to maintain the name of liberal among men, it is necessary not to spare any sumptuousness; so that, always, a prince who does this will consume all of his resources in such works; and in the end, if he wants to retain the name of liberal, he will be required to weigh down the people extraordinarily” (Machiavelli, 1984). In this case, under a liberal man Machiavelli implies liberality and parsimony of a ruler. For contemporary leaders, this way is impossible because if he/she acts in his own interests only, he will not be able to sustain his position. Nevertheless, Machiavellian prescription of tyranny – “liberation agenda’” – can be applied to the situation in Iraq and the politics of the US government (Guttieri, n.d.).

Another discrepancy which cannot be applied to contemporary leaders is the processes of gaining power. Machiavelli explains to the Prince the necessity of army and discipline for successful reign, and discusses different tactics: “To desire to acquire is truly something very natural and ordinary and always, when men do it who can, they will be lauded, or not blamed; but when they cannot, and want to do it anyway, here is the error and the blame.” (Machiavelli, 1984). Contemporary leaders may exercise authority as an attribute of position only. Unfortunately, this Machiavellian thesis can be applied to the war in Iraq (and other military operations) and reflects the political position of the US in this conflict (Guttieri, n.d.). In his book Ledeen provides a very interesting parallels with contemporary world saying that “The bloody-mindedness derives from ambition, and human ambition is unlimited” (Ledeen, 2000).

Machiavelli analyzes advantages and threats of power, and advices the Prince to be watchful about possible threats threaten his power and the reins of government. This statement can be partially applied to a contemporary leader. “Nothing so much honors a man newly come to power as the new laws and new ordinances he brings into being.” (Machiavelli, 1984).  Supremely, a new leader should not change everything in order to maintain his power and strict control under the followers (population). New rules can be implement only if the old law does not satisfy the needs of the society. Machiavelli illustrates that if people are united they are stronger, but dangerous at the same time, like “auxiliaries” (foreign military troops).

In all times, people have been looking for leaders who are willing to give it all they have. That is when a leader has to be sure that what he is doing is right so that he will keep going. The effective leader acquires a vision of the future, trust which helps him to judge what is right, creativity which helps to foresee and overcome difficulties, open-mindedness, good communication skills, etc.  Being a leader is not a position, but a function. Machiavelli’s concepts can be applied to contemporary leaders in the light of democratic principles and regimes. The dogmas have not been changed, but our interpretation of them and our understanding of the political process differ greatly from Middle Ages.

• Guttieri, K. Post-Saddam Iraq: What would Machiavelli advise ? Available at: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-gutt1.htm
• Ledeen, A.M.  Machiavelli on Modern Leadership : Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules Are As Timely and Important Today As Five Centuries Ago. Truman Talley Books. 2000.
• Machiavelli, N. The Prince. Bantam Classics, 1984.
• Parallels: “Machiavellian” Politics Today . Available at: http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~lauriej/links/parallels/machiavelli.html
• A Rose for Emily
• Animal Farm
• Death of a Salesman
• Fahrenheit 451
• Flowers for Algernon
• George Orwell's 1984
• Gothic Literature

Home — Essay Samples — Business — Leadership — How Did Machiavelli Influence Leaders

How Did Machiavelli Influence Leaders

• Categories: Leader Leadership

About this sample

Words: 614 |

Published: Mar 20, 2024

Words: 614 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Machiavelli's influence on political leaders, machiavelli's influence on business leaders, relevance of machiavelli's ideas in modern leadership.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life Business

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 538 words

1 pages / 389 words

3 pages / 1427 words

1 pages / 635 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Leadership

Queen Elizabeth I of England, often referred to as the "Golden Queen" or the "Virgin Queen," is celebrated as one of history's most exceptional leaders. Her reign, which spanned from 1558 to 1603, is characterized by political [...]

Dayton, D. (2021). The importance of leadership training in the army. Chron. Web.Moldoveanu, M., & Narayandas, D. (2019). The future of leadership development. Harvard Business Review, 97(2), 40-48.

Leadership is a complex and multi-faceted concept that has intrigued scholars, researchers, and practitioners for decades. It is often debated whether leadership is an innate characteristic that individuals are born with or an [...]

As human beings, our lives are intricately intertwined with those of others. We live in communities, work in teams, and build relationships that shape our personal and professional experiences. In this essay, we will explore the [...]

In crafting this leadership application essay, I am prompted to reflect on the formative experiences that have shaped my leadership abilities and underscore my aspiration to serve as a peer leader. As the oldest boy among four [...]

Warren Buffett is a legendary investor from the North America who donated his eighty-three percentage of savings to the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation. He is the current CEO and Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, he believes [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Machiavelli’s Leadership, Essay Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1688

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

One of the most interesting paradoxes in Machiavelli’s The Prince can perhaps be stated as follows: on the one hand, Machiavelli’s entire text is dedicated to establishing why a prince must be a strong political ruler, avoiding any type of moralistic or idealistic sentiments to the extent that this may compromise his power. On the other hand, however, Machiavelli understands that fortune is crucial to a ruler: a ruler cannot account for all the events that may befall him or her, and therefore much of what happens in politics is out of the control of the “Prince.” This seems to be a paradox because Machiavelli puts so much emphasis on maintaining power, while at the same time arguing that so much of the success of a ruler is subject to the circumstances of chance. In other words, even if a ruler would somehow embody the power and political realism that Machiavelli advocates, successfully fulfilling these principles, a much weaker ruler, who perhaps violates all of Machiavelli’s key principles as outlined in the book, could in the end be considered to be a greater ruler to the extent that fortune shines upon him or her. The point is as follows: if Machiavelli spends so much time arguing that the ruler of a state must consider power above all else, does he not subvert his own principles by giving an equal and perhaps even more important position within his political system to chance and fortune? Maybe this paradox becomes less confusing if one considers the question of how a leader should sensibly and reasonably deal with fortune. This is an important point for Machiavelli and is arguably crucial to his system because he emphasizes both the need for powerful rulers and the important role of chance: in other words, a sensible and powerful ruler, for Machiavelli, properly deals with chance and fortune that are inevitable in politics precisely by understanding the limits of his or her own sensibilities and powers.

This thesis can be developed first by looking at Chapter XV of The Prince , entitled “On Those Things for which Men, and Particularly Princes, are Praised or Blamed.” In this section, Machiavelli examines basically how princes and rulers gain positive or negative views from those who are ruled over. Machiavelli takes an interesting approach to this question of being favored, noting that being favored is ultimately not important when compared to what he terms “preservation.” (p. 59) Hence, Machiavelli writes, “for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.” (p. 59) In other words, being favored seems to imply that one is trying to work towards some notion of good: the peoples being ruled over will favor a ruler if he tries to do good for them. However, for Machiavelli this is a cardinal mistake: the sensible and reasonable ruler understands that doing good all the time is an impossibility, since for Machiavelli understands that there is a difference between “how one lives and how one ought to live.” (p. 59) Reality is simply distinguished from any question of “ought”, the latter being a question of what is good. The ruler must place self-preservation above all. Yet how does this relation to fortune? For Machiavelli, the reasonable and sensible ruler makes his or her own self-survival the first priority. This means that he or she lives in the “real world” as opposed to the idealized world of what “ought to be done.” Part of this real world is the understanding that other individuals will always attempt to undermine the ruler’s political power: the real world, in other words, is a struggle for power. But at the same time, what is also part of the real world for Machiavelli is also fortune. If a ruler wants to maintain his or her power, it is not enough to merely be reasonable and sensible. This is because the ruler must understand that many circumstances are out of his or her control; also, there are many contingencies that may develop which are unseen also from the perspective of the Prince’s political opponents. Understanding reality in a rational manner therefore for Machiavelli has two parts: Firstly, making self-preservation one’s goal, because the real world is constituted by a struggle for power. Secondly, many acts, even though one takes this realist position, are simply out of one’s hands. Therefore, the struggle for power is also shaped by the fortune and contingency of events. The rational prince understands his or her own limitations.

Machiavelli makes this point very explicit in Chapter XXV, entitled “On Fortune’s Role in Human Affairs and how she can be Dealt with.” Machiavelli wants to take a middle road in this section. He does not want to accept a thesis of absolute sovereignty, whereby the ruler is ultimately omniscient and omnipotent: that is to say, although the ruler must do is to understand that their self-preservation is of the most crucial importance, and at the same time do anything in their power to realize this goal. On the other hand, he does not want to accept the following position, which Machiavelli describes as follows: “the opinion that the things of this world are, in a manner, controlled by fortune and by God, that men with their wisdom cannot control them.” (p. 66) In other words, Machiavelli does not want to leave everything up to fate or to pure chance. Machiavelli is a humanist in this sense: he wishes to emphasize the importance of people’s own decision making processes in regards to their own fortune. He does not want to give this power to some transcendent God, because this would some type of “idealized” version of reality which he criticizes in the section previously mentioned. If he would accept this view, it means that he would accept the view that rulers should act according what “ought to be done”, where here God functions as this “ought”: he think what ought to be done, for example, by reference to some supernatural power. Machiavelli in other words wants to remain a realist: he wants to avoid supernatural explanations and place autonomy in the human being. However, at the same time, he does not want to promote some viewpoint where human beings are therefore omnipotent, thereby becoming merely another type of God on earth.

Understanding this key difference is arguably how the ruler deals with fortune in a rational and sensible manner. On the one hand, the ruler recognizes his or her own autonomy: the Prince is free to act, for example, with a view towards self-preservation and the maintenance of political power. For Machiavelli, this is the rational and sensible position of a ruler who wishes to be successful. On the other hand, the ruler also must recognize his or her own lack of autonomy, that he or she is not merely a God on earth, but rather lives in the realist political space of chance, struggle and contingency.

This is why Machiavelli takes the following approach: “In order that our free will be not extinguished, I judge it to be true that fortune is the arbiter of one half of our actions, but that she still leaves the control of the other half, or almost that, to us.” (p. 65) Machiavelli’s exact division of fortune and free will or autonomy, “half, or almost that” is not important here: what is rather decisive is that Machiavelli understands a form of free will that is also limited by other events. And this seems to be an entirely logical conclusion, which avoids any type of idealism: we can certainly will and intend to make certain actions, such as the ruler’s self-preservation. But many of these decisions are contingent upon other events. It is this contingency upon other events which are out of our control. Therefore, the sensible and rational Prince understands these two influences that are active in political life and political power.

At the same time, this gives us a rational definition of what fortune means in this context. The Prince, in other words, does not have a supernatural definition of fortune, but rather understands fortune and chance in rational terms, even though fortune and chance are irrational, since anything can conceivably happen. That is to say, fortune is not some supernatural force that decides good fates or bad fates to particular individuals. Fortune here is the terminology in realist political terms for what Machiavelli understands to be the limitations of a given power structure. This becomes clear if we understand it as follows: a Prince or ruler does have authority, but their authority is always limited. This is because power and authority are contested, one does not have absolute authority: if this were the case Machiavelli’s prince would be a type of God, which goes away from his realism. There would be no political questions in this case. These gaps in the prince’s free well and authority, the gaps in the power of the political elite and system, are instances of fortune. In other words, the Prince understands that fortune can also be understood in rational and sensible terminology, even though it seems to be irrational and insensible simply because fortune lies beyond what we can calculate and expect. This is because fortune is another name for limitations.

In conclusion, therefore, the Prince who is rational and sensible knows that he or she is not a God on earth. The Prince understands the struggle for power that constitutes politics. The Prince is a thorough realist. At the same time, when the Prince understands the centrality of this struggle for power in the political life, the Prince understands that contingency, chance and unforeseen events are also a part of this life. The Prince understands that his or her own authority is not absolute: this is what Machiavelli terms fortune, the unforeseen that can never be foreseen. But this does not mean the Prince remains totally ignorant: for by understanding limitations in power, one may anticipate where the unexpected may arise. It is this understanding that constitutes a rational and sensible position of the Prince towards the irrationality of “fortune.”

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Target Behavior, Essay Example

Patient Advocacy, Case Study Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Relatives, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 364

Voting as a Civic Responsibility, Essay Example

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

Machiavelli’s The Prince and Cheney’s Leadership Essay

Introduction, machiavelli’s the prince and the leadership of vice president dick cheney.

In this paper, will be established a link between Machiavelli’s The Prince and the leadership of Vice President Dick Cheney during his tenure. The Prince was addressed to the Medici Family to inform the prince of how he must behave to save Italy from humiliation and lead it into glory. Its writer, Niccolo Machiavelli, proposes the best conduct of a prince as being stingy than generous, cruel than merciless, and one who breaks promises to guard personal interests. Machiavelli also advises the prince to take on large projects as a way of building a reputation and fighting for the people’s goodwill by avoiding being despised or hated. Cheney seemed to follow Machiavelli’s advice of cruelty in his decision during the Iraq war and his resolve to make the president’s power unlimited. While Machiavelli’s arguments were made for historic Italy, they can be traced and proven right in the political figure of Cheney.

After these introductory paragraphs, the next one will discuss the historical context of The Prince. Paragraphs three to four will present the close reading of the text, particularly, Machiavelli’s maxim that the end justifies the means and his depiction of man as a political animal. The next paragraph will explore Cheney’s context, including his contributions to war after 9/11, political motivations, and the consequences of his actions. In the two paragraphs preceding the conclusion, I will establish a connection between Cheney’s actions and Machiavelli. Finally, I will write the last and concluding paragraph of the essay.

Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy on May 3, 1469. After completing customary Renaissance education, he studied business mathematics and worked for a banker in Rome until 1494 when he returned to Florence. He saw how the Medici Family was expelled and another family took over leadership. Italy experienced intense political conflicts as Venice, Florence, Naples, and Milan fought over control of the country. While many strategies were at play, these powers also used violence and blackmail. Machiavelli’s political thinking was mainly influenced by Cesare Borgia, a Romagna Duke who was despised by most people for being cruel, vicious, and cunning. While in public service one year after the Medici Family regained their position, Machiavelli was accused of conspiracy, jailed, and relieved of his duties. The Prince was an attempt of his to win over the family’s favor and regain his political post.

The Prince can be divided into four key sections by themes. These include types of principalities explored from the first to the eleventh chapters and types of armies discussed in chapters 12, 13, and 14. From chapters 15 to 23, Machiavelli writes about the expected conduct of a prince and he explains the desperate situation in Italy in chapters 24 to 26. In the final chapter, Machiavelli pleads with the Medici family to support the prince in redeeming Italy. A close reading of the text reveals that Machiavelli’s political thought is inclined towards using any means to achieve a desirable end, the need for swift and cunning political actions, and competition as the driving force of enthusiastic and determined individuals.

Machiavelli believes that the end justifies the means, which makes him support the cruel actions of the prince to seize and retain power. His usage of the terms ‘appearances and results’ and ‘final outcome’ in the text shows his emphasis on the ends rather than on the means (Machiavelli & Atkinson, 2008). He argues, “people judge all men’s actions, and particularly those of a prince, by the final outcome” (Machiavelli & Atkinson, 2008, p. 285). Machiavelli believes that the prince’s actions are always considered honorable and worthy of praise because most people are excited by the results. Machiavelli also perceives man as a political animal because of the need to act cunningly and swiftly to seize power. He explores the rising to power of princes and dukes who quickly and through cunning means took advantage of political moments that yielded them power. An example is given of Duke Borgia, a commoner whose father seized an opportunity to put him into power. Machiavelli praises him for swiftly establishing the foundations for his reign.

Machiavelli creates a concept of competition in politics, which requires enthusiasm and determination. Individuals who seek to consolidate and harness political power must be more enthusiastic and determined than the rest. Slower-paced competitors become victims as the prince moves faster than such enemies do to seize the reign. Machiavelli cites the example of Romans who established and retained their power by ensuring that the less powerful cannot increase their strength. The Romans also “humbled the powerful and forbade potent invaders” from gaining an influence on their colonies (Machiavelli & Atkinson, 2008, p. 113). Throughout The Prince , Machiavelli praises princes and dukes who acted swiftly and even cunningly to seize power from existing rulers.

Vice President Cheney has been described as the American Machiavellian due to his cruelty and cunning actions exhibited in extreme political ambitions, the decisions leading to war following the 9/11 attacks, and the outcomes of these acts. Cheney believed that after the attacks, America needed a way to demonstrate to the world that it still had power over its enemies. Since the desired outcome was to regain the image of a powerful and formidable force in the world of politics, any means were justifiable. According to Friedersdorf (2011), Cheney’s conduct in events, preceding the Iraq war and after the war was mendacious and irresponsible. Cheney led to misinformation by stove piping raw intelligence from the CIA to his office and creating alternative intelligence office within Pentagon. While official records showed no existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Cheney continuously made claims on the contrary in the public (Butt, 2019). In addition, the CIA found no relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but Cheney publicly announced that Saddam supports terrorist groups including Al Qaeda (Friedersdorf, 2011). Cheney’s actions, decisions, and motivations are an indication of Machiavelli’s political thought.

Machiavelli supports the prince in utilizing any means to achieve the desired outcomes. He claims that most people judge leaders by their results rather than methods. Cheney seems to have followed this idea in Iraq’s war because he used false information and cunningly obtained intelligence through an unofficial channels. While the verified data from the CIA showed that Iraq was not involved in nuclear power processing, Cheney continued to announce the contrary to the public. In this way, he would win the approval of the masses and attack Iraq without being despised by the populace (Butt, 2019). Cheney also seems to have followed Machiavelli’s advice on keeping the masses under control when he devised citizen monitoring. He introduced an operation in which NSA would spy on the citizens’ emails and phone calls (Friedersdorf, 2011). All these actions are in line with Machiavelli’s political thought as presented in The Prince.

Cheney is a typical political man as envisioned by Machiavelli because he acted swiftly and cunningly to compete for power with President Bush. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Cheney moved to strike a power sharing deal with Bush, which raised the power exercised by a vice president to a new high level (Greenberg, 2019). This move shows how competitive Cheney was in his political career, to the extent of daring to undermine his boss, the president. He also sought to extend the president’s power beyond the constitution, allowing him to bypass congressional oversight. Cheney also engaged in illegal activities just to achieve his desired result of maintaining the US’ position as a global force.

In conclusion, The Prince presents Machiavelli’s political thought, which is reflected in the actions and decisions of Vice President Dick Cheney. Machiavelli advocates for stiff political competition, maintaining and seizing power by all means, and engaging in projects that build a leader’s reputation. Cheney shows competition in his act to raise a vice president’s power after striking a deal with Bush. He also ensured that America attacked Iraq as the project that would reestablish America as a world political power to be reckoned with. In the quest to achieve this mission, Cheney used illegal and cunning methods by providing and using false information. Machiavelli’s old writings introduced a new meaning to contemporary politics that undermined Christian political theories, which required a ruler to be merciful, tolerant, peaceful, and generous. He changed how European politics were conceived under Aristotle’s virtues by introducing the maxim that the end justifies the means, whereby the ‘end’ is self and power preservation.

Butt, A. I. (2019). Why did the United States invade Iraq in 2003? Security Studies , 28 (2), 250-285.

Friedersdorf, C. (2011). Remembering why Americans loathe Dick Cheney . The Atlantic .

Greenberg, J. (2019). Vice: What the movie gets right and wrong about Dick Cheney. Politifact.

Machiavelli, N., & Atkinson, J. B. (2008). The Prince (Atkinson Edition) . Hackett Publishing.

• Authentic Leadership Style in Business
• Transformational Leadership Benefits Innovation
• Apple Inc.'s Adoption of Machiavelli’s Ideas
• Leadership Skills: "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli
• Netflix's Strategy From Machiavelli's Perspective
• Leadership Experience Example: Leading a User Research Team
• Importance of Leadership in Healthcare and Nursing
• Leadership and Its Three Major Models
• Adaptive Leadership: The Main Aspects
• Discussion of Servant Leadership Behaviors
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, May 8). Machiavelli’s The Prince and Cheney’s Leadership. https://ivypanda.com/essays/machiavellis-the-prince-and-cheneys-leadership/

"Machiavelli’s The Prince and Cheney’s Leadership." IvyPanda , 8 May 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/machiavellis-the-prince-and-cheneys-leadership/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Machiavelli’s The Prince and Cheney’s Leadership'. 8 May.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Machiavelli’s The Prince and Cheney’s Leadership." May 8, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/machiavellis-the-prince-and-cheneys-leadership/.

1. IvyPanda . "Machiavelli’s The Prince and Cheney’s Leadership." May 8, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/machiavellis-the-prince-and-cheneys-leadership/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Machiavelli’s The Prince and Cheney’s Leadership." May 8, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/machiavellis-the-prince-and-cheneys-leadership/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Leadership and Machiavelli

• November 30, 2016

David R. Weaver

• Essays , Philosophy

Scholars, practitioners, and more casual observers of leadership often talk about Niccolo Machiavelli in the context of leadership practices.  Substantially fewer seem to be well read on the (in)famous Florentine.  It is possible to consider Machiavelli, his writings, and ideas reputed to him, in a better, more informed, less condemnatory and more positive light.  This essay will try to show how and why Machiavelli has been substantially misunderstood and misrepresented in modern discussions of leadership and how a different understanding of his frame of thought can inform our thinking about leadership.

Machiavelli is of such historical standing that he ranks among those  for whom no given name is needed.  He stands virtually alone as a thinker and writer understood to convey a “realistic” approach to politics and leadership which requires a ruthless, self-interested, and amoral or, to many people, immoral practice.  This perception results from a tendency to read (or read about) only his most widely known s work, The Prince , and not to put it into context by reading the rest of his works, especially The Discourses   (more properly known as Discourses on Titus Livy ).  The conclusion often drawn from this short-changing of Machiavelli is that the model of leadership practice developed in The Prince is advice on how to be a leader in the real world.  But, closer reading suggests that Machiavelli did not hold so simple a view.

The following exposition on Machiavelli is not meant to be comprehensive, but to challenge. It rests on the observation that Machiavelli imagines leadership arising out of a more complex set of causes and having necessary affects that are not encompassed by reading The Prince, alone.  His ideas have more to do with the potential success of the human community than with the achievement of particular leaders.

Central to these ideas is the contrast between the two books on the way societies should be and the way they, in fact, most often are.  It is this dichotomy that reveals Machiavelli’s concern with understanding why and how societies succeed or fail.  In his two models, the primary burden of responsibility falls on citizens in one case and a ruthless leader (the Prince) in the other.   In a republic, leaders are balanced and checked by a virtuous citizenry who care for the community at least as much as they care for themselves.  (Perhaps because they care for themselves in a way that is inseparable from the community.)  In a sense, Machiavelli’s republic is the ‘good’ society whereas the principality is the less “evil” choice between order and disorder that must be made when the republic fails.

It is important to recall that the Prince rises to re-establish order in a society that has descended into disorder following the citizenry’s loss of virtu’ – the capacity to rule themselves in the interest of all.  Of particular interest is the idea that a principal reason for this loss of capacity and commitment is the rise to dominance of particular or narrow self-interest divorced from the well being of the community and to the exclusion of commitment to the welfare of others.   (It may be useful to recall that Machiavelli predates modern liberalism and its somewhat odd notion that narrow self-interests can interact, especially in the marketplace, to produce the common good.  (See the treatment by Stephen Holmes)  Indeed, Machiavelli understands that a successful and virtuous society must be composed of citizens who link their own interest to the community, even at the cost of their own narrow self-interest.  It can be argued that his concept of the virtuous citizen/leader requires, at its best, a unification of self-interest and community interest to such a degree that the pursuit of narrow self-interest is, in fact, the negation of virtu’ and, thus, the prime cause of the failure of the community.

Machiavelli fails directly to address the question of virtuous leadership in a republic, even thought the inferences that may be drawn are clear enough.  It is not reasonable to conclude that Machiavelli’s republic is composed only of virtuous citizens who need no leaders of their own.  Rather, we may suggest that he intends the official and/or informal leadership of the community to share a common virtu’ with all citizens.  It is this high standard that is likely to erode as individual citizens and leaders begin to serve lesser, more self-centered ends.

In the end, Machiavelli’s common denominator for leadership is a capacity to commit to purpose.  When the citizens of the virtuous republic lose their commitment to the commonweal the community can be maintained in much less perfect form only by the strength of a prince.  The differences between the types have to do with the ruthlessness required of a leader in trying to restore and maintain order when citizenship fails; citizenship being the capacity of each person in a society to commit to a common purpose in the sustenance and preservation of the community.  Absent that commitment to a common purpose, the prince must impose order by whatever means necessary.

Clearly, commitment to purpose begs a question as to the virtue of the purpose itself; to this Machiavelli speaks only obliquely.  The most just state of social existence for him, it seems, would be one in which all people are consciously governed in their own actions by a sense of obligation to each other.  That he may have doubted the possibility of this in the real world does not detract from its value as an ultimate standard.  Indeed, the Machiavellian perspective, read as suggested here, invites us to revisit the classical perspective in which the just society is not merely the optimally productive in material goods.

Consider, for example, the difficulties attendant on the clash between the idea of universal human rights and the idea of national sovereignty wherein each nation’s right to separately and differently define virtue is treated as the supreme right and necessity of existence.   Similarly, consider the western notion of “individualism” which tends to eschew both the individuals responsibility for the community and the communities responsibility for the individual -this despite the contradictory impulse evident among many to hold the individual responsible for his/her own acts according to assumed pre-established community standards!  These suggest simply an elaborated version of Machiavelli’s decayed republic in which the common interest is sacrificed to selfish, individual interest and the community interest becomes merely a corrupted extension of the dominant combination of narrow selfish interests. In essence, it is possible to suggest, Machiavelli’s approach can take us to the realization that leadership and power are distributed among citizens in the virtuous republic whereas in its fallen state they are concentrated in the hands of a prince!  Indeed, more modern but still “classic” works supporting the modern state such as the Federalist Papers suggest an overriding concern with creating a workable republic based on both restraining the prince and containing the people!  But, many contemporary students of leadership and organization point to a need for greater cooperation and more widely distributed leadership.

The second paradox follows from the implications of the first: leaders tend to emerge in larger groups who come to resemble Machiavelli’s Prince more than his virtuous republican citizen/leader.  Is this because order becomes an increasingly significant second-order value (necessary for the realization of all other values) as the size and complexity of the group increases?   That is, as the dominance of a single leader increases as the size of the group increases does the desire for order tend to suppress the emergence of leaders from the smaller sub-groups, both formal and informal, within the larger group – at least partly in the name of keeping order?  It seems that democratic groups and organizations will begin to lose their “virtu’” as they suppress the free, participatory, smaller groups (3-7) and the leaders they spawn; leaders who can not only provide a reservoir of successors for the group or organization but a set of communication nodes capable of carrying a common message and defining a common mission.  Significantly, much of a Prince’s power will be provided by the passive acquiescence of the members of the group who come to willingly distance themselves from the greater responsibilities of citizenship.  The most insidious element of this process is that in which the citizen, already corrupted by narrow material self-interest, is persuaded to accept more material gratification as a substitute for both personal and social virtue.  Thus, all meaningful hope of adherence to a universal standard of right seems doomed.

This dark picture is not unrelieved, however, since it remains possible that leadership can emerge which produces, or arises from, a universe of leaders cooperating in the creation of the human community.  The world may not be saved by a single leader but by many leaders who seek a common message and mission.  It is probably true that such an ideal significantly overreaches real possibilities, and certainly begs the question of conflict between substantive and procedural values, but is not the vision of (and hope for!) leadership that speaks for all humanity the ultimate cause of our fascination with the subject?  Do not most modern organizations seek ways to release the creativity of their members?  Calls for participative management and relationship-centered leadership reflect at least some realization that a culture based on individualism, competitiveness, and hierarchy has its limits and flaws.  The Machiavellian imagination suggests that a return to the virtue of many leaders is what should call to us, not the delusion that a single individual can save us from ourselves.

Stephen Holmes. 1995.   Passions and Constraint: On the Theory of Liberal Democracy.   Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Machiavelli, N., 1988, The Prince , Q. Skinner and R. Price (eds.), Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

____________. The Discourses . Translated by Leslie J. Walker, S.J,  revisions by Brian Richardson (2003). London: Penguin Books.

Robert Michels.  1911 (1915 trans).  Political Parties: a Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. University of   Virginia Electronic Text Center.

Sydney Verba.  1961.  Small Groups and Political Behavior: A Study of Leadership.   Princeton: Princeton University Press.

David Weaver is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Saginaw Valley State University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati in Political Science. His major areas of interest include foreign relations and political development, political thought and theory, and, primarily, leadership and democratic theory and practice.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

• previous post: A Libertarian Error
• next post: Cosmopolitanism: Citizens Without States?

Subscribe to VoegelinView via Email

Stay informed with the best in arts and humanities criticism, political analysis, reviews, and poetry. Just enter your email to receive every new publication delivered to your inbox.

Email Address