Search results

Officially, of course, the world is now post-imperial. The Q’ing and Ottoman empires fell on the eve of World War I, and the last Leviathans of Europe's imperial past, the Austro-Hungarian and Tsarist empires, lumbered into the grave soon after. Tocsins of liberation were sounded on all sides, in the name of democracy (Wilson) and socialism (Lenin). Later attempts to remake and proclaim empires – above all, Hitler's annunciation of a “Third Reich” – now seem surreal, aberrant, and dystopian. The Soviet Union, the heir to the Tsarist empire, found it prudent to call itself a “federation of socialist republics.” Mao's China followed suit. Now, only a truly perverse, contrarian regime would fail to deploy the rhetoric of democracy.

Machiavelli's dictums in The Prince (1977) instigated the modern discourse on power. Arguing that “there's such a difference between the way we really live and the way we ought to live that the man who neglects the real to study the ideal will learn to accomplish his ruin, not his salvation” (Machiavelli, 1977, p. 44), his approach is a realist one. In this text, Machiavelli (1977, p. 3) endeavors to “discuss the rule of princes” and to “lay down principles for them.” Taking his lead, Foucault (1978, p. 97) argued that “if it is true that Machiavelli was among the few…who conceived the power of the Prince in terms of force relationships, perhaps we need to go one step further, do without the persona of the Prince, and decipher mechanisms on the basis of a strategy that is immanent in force relationships.” He believed that we should “investigate…how mechanisms of power have been able to function…how these mechanisms…have begun to become economically advantageous and politically useful…in a given context for specific reasons,” and, therefore, “we should…base our analysis of power on the study of the techniques and tactics of domination” (Foucault, 1980, pp. 100–102). Conceptualizing such techniques and tactics as the “art of governance”, Foucault (1991), examined power as strategies geared toward managing civic populations through shaping people's dispositions and behaviors.

The purpose of this paper is to undertake a Machiavellian analysis of the determinants of organisational change. It aims to present a model of how power, leaders and teams, rewards and discipline, and roles, norms and values, serve as drivers, enablers or inhibitors of organisational change.

The paper adopts the sixteenth century Machiavellian text The Prince as a lens through which to examine organisational change.

The paper concludes that Machiavellian thinking provides a valuable guide to the challenges and obstacles in negotiating organisational change and identifies the individual as occupying the central role in determining whether the change intervention will be accepted or rejected.

The longevity of Machiavellian thinking underlines the constancy of human behaviour and the relevance of age‐old thinking in understanding and negotiating change in a complex fast‐paced business environment.

Shows how Machiavelli influenced modern management in much more fundamental ways than simply his well‐known advice to be ruthless, upon which many management writers focused. First, it explains his reputation for advising ruthlessness by discussing his life and times and the subject‐matter on which he wrote. Second, it details his positive teaching with regard to the modern world, the division of that world into a public and a private sector, and his foundation for the modern executive. In that context, ruthlessness is a tool for his executive figure to maintain stability in the public sector, so that people can focus more of their attention on the private sector in a modern world devoted to people serving their own needs.

Machiavellian principles are deemed to be applicable to our modern enterprises and have been said to offer critical advice to, and decisive discourse on, management thought and education. The paper revisits Machiavelli’s original arguments and examines these in the light of modern management theory. In particular, the paper scrutinizes the theory for relevance to today’s enterprise given that it was conceived in an era of competitive fragmentation of the Renaissance. The authors comment on a number of topics on which Machiavelli has offered advice, including takeovers of principalities, change, alliances, governance, and leadership principles for applicability to business. The paper concludes that the best way to manage complex business organizations is not through corrupting best management practice with the ideology of Machiavelli but to foster visionary well communicated business principles and practices.

The purpose of this paper is to show the benefits of bridging the gap between supply chain management (SCM) and political philosophy to challenge the underlying assumptions about SCM concepts and open doors to novel theory building.

A thought experiment is conducted to illustrate how the two philosophers Niccolò Machiavelli and Jürgen Habermas would tackle sustainability issues in coffee supply chains from a research perspective. The thought experiment is carried out using data from 30 semi-structured interviews with actors from the coffee industry. Supplementing the thought experiment with empirical insights allows for a deeper understanding of supply chain dynamics and how these are impacted by the application of the philosophical viewpoints.

The research stresses the importance of SCM scholars being aware of the underlying assumptions of their research, as these have a remarkable impact on theory building. A combination of empirical insights and philosophical understandings makes it possible to reflect on the underlying concepts of SCM, providing suggestions for reimagining SCM.

The contribution of the research is twofold. First, the paper presents an original view on SCM, as the thought experiment is introduced as an approach to better understand SCM concepts. By challenging the underlying assumptions with political philosophy, researchers will be better equipped to address grand challenges in the twenty-first century. Second, this is exemplified by the case study of the coffee supply chain, which provides the reader with insight into the dynamics of supply chains with prevalent power differences.

The purpose of this paper is to establish a supported and validated reference point for Machiavellianism as an antecedent to the contemporary management philosophy of business process reengineering (BPR).

This paper analyzes BPR and Machiavellianism by using the seminal work of Hammer and Champy (1993) on BPR and the original writings of Machiavelli coupled with the personal correspondence of Machiavelli with his contemporaries.

The findings of this research indicate that the constructs of Machiavellian thought transcend the five centuries since the publication of The Prince, and can be found in the contemporary managerial framework of BPR. This comparison of historical leadership frameworks demonstrates how recent management decisions in companies show the rise of Machiavellian as BPR. In an analysis of these theories, the authors show similarities in five significant tenets of business leadership and argue how these repackaged ideas and prescriptions undermine employee-centric advances.

This comparison reviews the managerial frameworks presented in Machiavelli’s The Prince and Hammer and Champy’s book Reengineering the Corporation through the theoretical tenets of leadership.

Employment of Machiavellianism and BPR results in an expendable utilization of followers and employees. Implications abound for modern managers, as the authors emphasize the elements and outcomes which lead to deleterious organizational outcomes.

In an analysis of these theories, the authors argue how these strategies undermine employee-centric advances within human relations by embracing these repackaged ideas and concepts.

This research leverages historical perspective to provide a qualitative understanding of the follies of recycled versions of Machiavelli’s ideas. The overall study and inquiry of BPR from a leadership perspective is not robust and leaves antecedents and influences critically unevaluated.

Niccolò Machiavelli is used as a guide to some of the key issues facing modern government and applies his insights into the effective management and development of civic society. Political marketing, good governance, lobbying, ethics and effective communication with the consumer is developed.

German legal historians of nineteenth and twentieth centuries defined the main characteristics of the corporations and believed that one renaissance institution, the Casa di San Giorgio at Genoa (1407–1805), was similar to the corporations of later centuries. This paper proposes to reverse this perspective: did the founders of early modern corporations know the financial model of the fifteenth century Casa di San Giorgio? The research shows the connection between the model of the Casa di San Giorgio and the Mississippi Company of John Law (1720), the famous financial scheme and bubble. The history of the Casa di San Giorgio was mainly transmitted through a passage of Machiavelli’s History of Florence (VIII, 29). The paper offers new biographical evidence that Law had been to Genoa and introduces sources connecting the genesis of Law’s scheme for the Mississippi Company in France with the model of the Casa di San Giorgio.

Machiavelli is often dismissed as an amoral (or even immoral) advocate of a “dog‐eat‐dog” world. In reality, his contribution is much more complicated than that. Machiavelli, above all else, was a humanistic empiricist who, instead of making unwarranted assumptions about human behavior, applied the empirical method combined with a humanistic vision in order to analyze people and their actions on their own terms. By doing so, he advocated a method of analysis that, in recent decades, has emerged as a vital technique of marketing research. By keeping Machiavelli’s contribution in mind, marketing researchers can most effectively perform empirical analysis that, while being objective, recognizes the distinctiveness of human beings and their behavior.