Niccolo Machiavelli Leadership Analysis

Author: The speaker of the excerpt is Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli is considered to be the first political philosopher. Employed as a diplomat of the state, Machiavelli wrote Histories, a book about the decline of prestige of Italian city-states. The Medici family had a grudge against Machiavelli, and therefore exiled him from Florence. After the powerful Medici family exiled him to his house in the countryside, Machiavelli wrote The Prince in attempt to make his political ideology known, and in hope to be reemployed by the state.

There are many important concepts to being successful leader. “The Prince,” a classic non-fiction written by Machiavelli in 1532 is an interesting story that gives readers a guide on how to rule a kingdom. It also, provides the do’s and dont’s on how to become a successful prince. In the story, Machiavelli discusses three themes: free will, hatred and laws and arms. Albert Lebrun followed these three ideas he had his own free will, he was feared by his people and had what Machiavelli describes to be the main foundation of every state. Albert Lebrun’s life shows that Machiavelli’s advice is still relevant today.

From the 14th century into the 17th century of European history, a cultural revolution took place. The renaissance came to Europe and pushed out old middle age ideals and brought in new humanistic ones. The renaissance brought new cultural ideas, new ways of learning, new art, and new standards of how to rule a Kingdom. Kingdoms were coming and going fast at this time, rulers were slipping under the pressures of expanding rule and it seemed that a new kingdoms were continuously being conquered. The guidelines set up in Machiavelli’s The Prince, help to define what makes up a good and bad leader in terms of the new Renaissance ideals.

Political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli’s, “The Prince”, exemplifies an early depiction of several “modern” ideological principles that would sustain and preserve nations (especially after the separation of the church and state) in the sixteenth century. In this critically acclaimed work, Machiavelli satirically bequeaths a map of qualities that princes should steadfastly uphold and advance. Expressly, the qualities mapped out are frequently criticized as, “crafty, cunning and unscrupulous methods by which a prince can acquire and maintain political power”. One of the most prominent principles that almost served as a catalyst and enchiridion for Machiavelli’s “ethical” behavior as an eminent political figure of Florence, Italy was, “the end

In the prince, Machiavelli explores a world of governments and presents the many different ways in which a ruler must adapt in order to run an efficient government. Machiavelli provides a number of applications in which a ruler can acquire and maintain the leading position of a government. While many of these applications are just and moral, there is no denying that some of the Machiavelli’s tactics are cruel and immoral. However, as we advance deep into the meaning behind Machiavelli’s choice of words, we learn that these unjust ways are meant to advance the power of the prince. We learn that Machiavelli’s goal isn’t to make a good prince, one that is loved by the people and makes everyone happy, but a great prince. Machiavelli begins

The Prince, a book written by Niccolo Machiavelli, was seen as a text about its coherent perspectives and noble concepts of Leadership. There is a term called “Machiavellian”. This term refers to “the belief that a ruler is justified in using any means necessary to stay in power”. Many people can point out many corrupt scandalous government officials that use deception and dishonesty to maintain their power or title. This

Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florence native, presented revolutionary ideas about leadership in his famous work “The Prince.” This sort of “how-to” handbook for rulers was written in a time when power was frequently changing hands, leaving nations in constant confusion (The Prince, 443). Machiavelli presented a way for these new leaders to maintain their power, encouraging such things as cruelty and fear as a means of governing the common people. This new concept was drastically opposed to the Christian ideals which had been taught for centuries. Despite its harshness, Machiavelli’s doctrine was accepted by many and has influenced some very popular men throughout history. One such person is none other than William Shakespeare. Multiple plays written by Shakespeare are stories of men in government who are either attempting to maintain their power or regain it. It is no wonder, then, why Shakespeare would refer to “The Prince” as a resource when writing these plays. One play in particular, “King Lear,” is evidence of Shakespeare’s acknowledgement of Machiavellian beliefs. Throughout this paly it may be witnessed how Machiavelli’s ideas on what a ruler should be were taken into account by the famous playwright, leading either to his characters’ success or downfall.

Allio acknowledges that there is no singular way to lead an organization to achieve success. He talks about the different leadership styles and standards that have been in effect over the years; noting that no singular style of leadership is consistently successful. In summary, Allio (2010) says ‘an ideal leader is a myth’ (p.6). Every leader must therefore make his own path and hope that it leads him to success in his time. He also points out the idea that in as much as the theoretical and ideologies of leadership can be passed on to people, the behavior itself cannot be taught and one has to learn it (Allio (2010: p. 9).

Machiavelli, sees this as an impractical and impossible way to lead. Machiavelli has the stance that “the conditions of human life make it impossible to exercise all those qualities” (Machiavelli 33). Machiavelli’s expresses his rational thought process on how government can be ruled. His experience working for the Florentine republic and then the Medici government allowed him to see what works and fails in effective leadership as both those governments saw failure. Machiavelli recognition that the leaders are only human and cannot be perfect.

Manipulative, courageous, harsh and wise are some of the many individualities a true Machiavellian holds. Throughout time, true Machiavellian leaders have significantly impacted not only the political world but the way people have come to live and reason. William Shakespeare’s protagonist, Macbeth, does not exhibit the leadership strategies outlined in Machiavelli’s The Prince. After analyzing both novels Macbeth had shown himself to be an incompetent leader, who could never be labeled a Machiavellian. To understand a true Machiavellian leader you must compare and contrast a failed leader to a leader who has thrived, succeeded and in the end could be regarded as a Machiavellian.

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.

Niccolò Machiavelli was brave enough to give the leaders of his day a how-to guide. In this work, The Qualities of a Prince, we are given a point-by-point description of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. Machiavelli explains that, because leadership is (obviously) a position of command, "[war] is the only profession which benefits one who commands. " (p. 33)

“Machiavelli wrote The Prince to serve as a handbook for rulers, and he claims explicitly throughout the work that he is not interested in talking about the ideal republics or imaginary utopias, as many of his predecessors had done” (Harrison). There is an ongoing debate about which philosopher’s ideas are most correct on the subject of leadership. Two main philosophers come to mind when thinking of this topic and they are Machiavelli with his book The Prince and Plato’s dialogue The Republic. The Republic takes a very theoretical point of view on leadership and portrays life as it should be in an ideal state, whereas Machiavelli’s The Prince, takes a more realistic point of view. Machiavelli is less interested with what things should be

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.