Humanized Accountability: Petrarch and Machiavelli's Happy Medium?

I found it interesting what Spencer M had to say about Machiavelli's leadership style. As we learned in class, Petrarch and Machiavelli didn't see eye to eye. I found it interesting that Petrarch advocated for the continuity between the Classical culture and Christianity. Another source I found explains that Petrarch believed an effective leader should be loving and merciful the way a father is to his children. If a leader takes the time to gain the trust and love of his or her people, it will be much easier for them to be loyal to you. I understand that Machiavelli found fear and power more effective tools, but I think too much fear can cause frustration and/or rebellion in the masses. (King Louis XIV was neither caring nor loving and look where that got him...just saying.)

Today while I was editing a blog post for my boss, I realized it was Petrarch vs. Machiavelli all over again. In his post my boss shared a story of how he motivated his employees to perform better when he was a housekeeping manager at a hotel. He said at first he tried to be loving and motivate them. He attended his employees' children's baptisms and brought donuts to the office on Fridays. He motivated them so effectively he said they could have won the world cup. But despite those efforts, their review scores didn't change.

So then he went all Machiavelli on them and tried to be harsh and angry and make them understand how upset he was. He even wore all black to work for a few days. That didn't work either. And then, he found a balance. He decided to bring each employee in one by one and review their personal scores with them. This personal accountability humanized the process so that he didn't seem like an evil person, but was able to instill a more personal type of fear for each employee. Knowing that the boss was measuring their personal scores held employees accountable and made them compete against themselves.

I would have never thought that Machiavelli's and Petrarch's leadership styles would reflect in a blogpost written for LinkedIn, but it made me realize that there is always something we can learn from many opinions of philosophy. Either way, I prefer the more humanist approach, siding with Petrarch. Compromise for the win.

Misunderstood Machiavelli

I first studied Machiavelli when I was a sophomore in high school. The expression on Machiavelli's face right up there is a pretty good representation of how I felt about it. Reading The Prince was pretty much akin to torture in my sixteen year old mind. I kept thinking--"Boring guy, boring topic. Let's move on." 

Machiavelli was immortalized by his idea that when it comes to being a leader, "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot have both." In his blogpost, Spencer M argues the point that: 

"Machiavelli believed that leaders should do whatever is necessary to accomplish political or leadership driven tasks." This may be what some may interpret from what Machiavelli said, but I don't think that was his point.

When Machiavelli said it is better to be feared than loved, he added--"if you cannot have both." I think this last statement is incredibly important. Machiavelli was not suggesting that a prince should be a liar and a conniving politician, but rather that he should not be afraid to enforce his rule IF he had to. I don't think that Machiavelli was supporting tyrants and dictators, but rather a firm hand when it came to ruling. He obviously preferred a combination of love and fear for a leader. Machiavelli did not call for blood and horror, but for leaders with a backbone. I think that too often when we read his famous words, we assume the worst, that Machiavelli was an advocate for leaders who ruled with menace and vengeance.

I believe that the ideas that Machiavelli purported in The Prince had a great impact on how Europeans looked at their leaders. The Renaissance was a time of change and growth. While what Machiavelli suggested wasn't exactly radical, it was revolutionary in the sense that it continues to affect how we judge and perceive leaders, even today.

Feared? Loved? Can You Be Both?

I think it is important to understand the kairos and audience of Mariavelli's The Prince in order to understand the text. Machiavelli was a prosperous politician in Florence until he made enemies with the wrong people. During political upheaval, Machiavelli took a stance with the anti-Medici Republicans, which would have been good for his career had they not taken power. The Medici family became the new rulers of Florence and Machiavelli found himself exiled for the last 14 years of his life. It was during this time that he wrote The Prince. I believe that it is important to know the context or kairos here because it effects Machiavelli's audience. His immediate audience was the Medicis. Perhaps he wanted to give tips to the Medici's in hopes that they would bring him back into Florence to become a political advisor. Therefore, we should read The Prince knowing that Machiavelli was a politician who wanted to be welcomed back into society. 

With this in mind, I specifically want to discuss the following idea: “...one would like to be both the one (feared) and the other (loved); but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.”

While it might be hard to combine being feared and loved, that is still seen as the ideal leader according the The Prince. This is a point that I agree with. I believe that the only leader who completely encompasses ultimate fear and love is God. It is up to your personal relationship with Him to decide whether you feel more fear or love, but His position demands that you fear and love Him.

Thinking of a society where the rulers were feared, I think about the early 1800's in the Cotton Belt. Slaves feared their masters and for good reason, blacks didn't have the right to go to court, to vote, or to leave without their masters permission. Additionally, a slave could be killed if they retaliated against punishments that their masters inflicted. In this society we know that fear did not win for the slaveholders. I know that my analysis breaks down because it wasn't the slaves that ultimately ended slavery and not every slave was afraid of their masters, but this does show that perhaps being feared is not the best type of leadership. 

The Positive Side to Being an Evil Politician: Machiavellianism

Truth is there probably isn't any. However, this is something that Niccolo Machiavelli might have argued with. Machiavelli believed that leaders should do whatever is necessary to accomplish political or leadership driven tasks. In his book The Prince Machiavelli said “it is better to be feared than be loved; for, in general, men are ungrateful, inconstant, hypocritical … and covetous of gain.” This mirrors some of my own characteristics when I served as a leader during my LDS mission. Although it isn't okay to lie, cheat, or do anything immoral to accomplish any task at hand, sometimes you must make the task at hand the first priority, ahead of being friends with your fellow missionaries, coworkers, or employees to be sure that it is completed successfully. Much of my leadership experience during my LDS mission tippy-toed close to some of the aspects of being a “Machiavellian”, which some might argue isn't the best approach, but given the successful work that took place during these efforts it is fair to say that Niccolo Machiavelli had a point in his political ideas.

            Machiavelli also brought forth main stream Renaissance ideas into the political sphere. His book The Prince, which focuses on what it takes to be a strong leader, had the intent to help unite the Italian city states because they were weak compared to surrounding countries that had a more unified state set up. In a political way this continued the celebration of individualism which was a recurring theme of the Renaissance. Although Machiavelli wanted the city states to be united it was not so much a communal idea as it was a unifying of Italian states from the rest of the world. This is the same type of individualism that is more easily present with the art and poetry of the time.