{"id":140,"date":"2013-12-11T13:54:35","date_gmt":"2013-12-11T12:54:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/ethics\/?p=140"},"modified":"2015-04-08T16:50:06","modified_gmt":"2015-04-08T15:50:06","slug":"machiavellian-management-ethics-500-years-of-the-prince","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/ethics\/2013\/12\/11\/machiavellian-management-ethics-500-years-of-the-prince\/","title":{"rendered":"Machiavellian Management Ethics: 500 years of \u201cThe Prince\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

What is more important for business success: behaving ethically or earning a good reputation? <\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/b>What then is the role of ethics in the context of business management?<\/p>\n

For quite some time \u201cbusiness is business\u201d was en vogue<\/i>.\u00a0 Yet the financial crisis and other scandals led us to a situation where social responsibility, sustainability and good reputation are appealing and part of any successful business<\/b>. But this new trend does not give by itself an answer to our question. The point \u2014some will say\u2014 is what we understand by success<\/b>. And the answer to that takes us back to Renaissance Italy.<\/p>\n

Until the Italian cinquecento<\/i> the common assumption in Christian Europe was that eternal salvation was way more important than earthly success<\/b> (power, money, pleasure). So no one dared to give a clear answer in public to our question, although almost everybody knew the unpleasant truth.<\/p>\n

\"Niccol\u00f2<\/a>
Niccol\u00f2 Machiavelli<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Niccol\u00f3 Machiavelli<\/b>, a Florentine diplomat, gave his own response in The Prince<\/i><\/b> \u2014a little treaty written five hundred years ago and published posthumously in 1532. Antony Jay translated it into contemporary business management language in his acclaimed book Management and Machiavelli<\/i> (1967).<\/p>\n

The Prince<\/i><\/b> is popularly known as an apology of fraud and manipulation<\/b> in political action. But we should read it carefully. Carl Schmitt, a well know follower of Machiavelli\u2019s political realism, once wrote: \u201cMachiavelli, had he been a Machiavellian, would sooner have written an edifying book rather than his ill-reputed Prince.\u201d<\/p>\n

For sure, Machiavelli always thought religion and morals were crucial for political life. But he broke with the moral teachings of Christian tradition, stating that leaders had to learn (unlearn) how to violate morals to obtain good political results<\/b>. He thus cut the link between political prudence and ethics, considering politics the science of power<\/b>. This was not a mere apology of immorality, but something needed for the greater or basic good of peaceful social life: \u201cThe ends justify the means.<\/b>\u201d<\/p>\n

Weber rationalized this moral approach as the politician\u2019s “ethics of responsibility<\/b>,” opposed to the saint\u2019s “ethics of conviction.” This has some features in common with what English philosophy called utilitarianism<\/i><\/b> (closely linked to economic logics); Americans later labeled as consequentialism<\/i><\/b> (so many times invoked in security and defense issues); and Germans significantly call Erfolgsethik<\/i> (ethics of success<\/b>).<\/p>\n

Leo Strauss, a remarkable and original interpreter of Machiavelli, wrote “Economism is Machiavellianism come to age<\/b>.” \u00a0At the end of the day the paradigm of individuals as maximizers of utility is based on the self-interest centered man of Machiavelli <\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Cover<\/a>
Cover page of 1550 edition of Machiavelli’s Il Principe<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But Machiavelli was aware of the importance of moral reputation<\/b>. He thought that a leader should be believed as morally trustworthy if he wanted to gain and preserve power. Moreover, he fought against corruption and in favor of civic virtue. But this ancient virtue was for him only the shell of Christian virtues: He viewed the strength of the lion and the astuteness of the fox as models to be followed<\/b>.<\/p>\n

So in fact an immoral business culture is not Machiavellian at all<\/b>. The current lack of trust and widespread corruption is even less Machiavellian than we think <\/span><\/a>. On the contrary, social responsibility, sustainability and reputation are a perfectly Machiavellian response<\/b> to the crisis. This is actually Machiavellianism at its best: successful.<\/p>\n

So The<\/i> Prince<\/i> is not to be read as a handbook for political maneuvering, or as a mere defense of arbitrariness<\/b>. That approach would make us incapable of understanding the lasting and deep impact of Machiavellianism in contemporary politics, and by the way, in the practice of Business Management.<\/p>\n

Summing up, there are three elements of Machiavellianism <\/b>in our current ethical landscape:<\/b><\/p>\n