8 |
ETHICAL LEADERSHIPMachiavellian, Manipulative, or Masterful?Approximately 30 minutes |
Overview
This exercise begins with a quiz that, ideally, helps participants realize that Machiavellian, and even manipulative, behavior can actually benefit all parties involved. They then work in pairs to discuss what they would have done in two real-world situations.
Purpose
To relate Machiavellian principles to positive business practices.
To stimulate discussion of ethically appropriate behavior.
Group Size
Any number of participants can engage in this exercise, which calls initially for individual work and then paired discussions.
Room Arrangement
No special arrangements are required.
Materials
Handout 8.1, “Historical Applications”
Handout 8.2, “How Machiavellian Are You?”
Handout 8.3, “What Would You Do?”
Procedure
1.Conduct a short discussion regarding the importance of open-mindedness in those who would lead. (You may choose to cite the example of Roger Boisjolie, a junior engineer, who tried repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, to warn his superiors of a problem with the O-ring in the Challenger shuttle.)
2.Explain that the handout you are distributing (Handout 8.1, “Historical Applications”) will afford them an opportunity to learn if they can look beyond certain negative connotations in order to find the value in a given set of circumstances.
3.After they complete the test, distribute Handout 8.2 (“How Machiavellian Are You?”) and allow a few minutes for participants to read the interpretation of the exercise results. Discuss the fact that we often recoil from certain words (or people or situations) without fully exploring the possible value inherent in those contexts.
4.Next, distribute Handout 8.3 (“What Would You Do?”) and ask participants to work in pairs to complete it.
5.Debrief with an exchange that acknowledges the following points:
a.It may be absolutely ethical for a leader to engage in behavior that is “Machiavellian” (in the broadest sense of the word) and even in behavior that is manipulative.
b.We need to examine words as carefully as we examine situations. People who are comfortable with power, for example, need not be “power-hungry.” In fact, the work of Harvard professor David McClelland shows that our best leaders, in fact, have a strong need for power.
c.It’s important for leaders to explore both the connotative and denotative meanings lying below the surface of words, people, and circumstances.
d.Moral dilemmas are dilemmas precisely because there’s seldom a black-or-white answer. While we must acknowledge that people have the right to do what they believe is the “right thing to do,” we must also acknowledge that in-depth discussions may help those people refine the choices they are about to make.
Variation
Icebreaker: Divide participants into small groups and ask them to share labels they have been identified with over the years (for example, “worrywart”). Then have each person explain the potential merit in that word—citing, perhaps, a time when they were very grateful that they did worry over the details someone else might have ignored. Move from the concept of positive-aspects-of-negative-designations to the exercise on Machiavellian behavior. Note that such behavior is not necessarily a bad thing to engage in. In fact, with a lofty ideal guiding it, such behavior could be regarded as thoroughly ethical.
Discussion
What other words (other than “Machiavellian,” “manipulative,” and “power-hungry”) are generally viewed as having a negative connotation?
What merit could lie behind some of these words?
How open are the lines of communication and consideration in your own organization? Are leaders unethically hoarding knowledge in the hopes of making themselves more powerful? Are they withholding information in order to deceive? Are they digging into what words really mean, even when it may be time-consuming or painful to do so? (To illustrate, quality guru Philip Crosby maintains that you can ask 10 different people what the word “quality” means and receive 10 different answers.) It is wrong for leaders to assume they alone have a corner on the word-meaning market.
Quotation
“We are all of us all the time coming together and falling apart. The point is we are not rocks. Who wants to be one anyway, impermeable, unchanging, our history already played out. . . .”
—John Rosenthal
Points of Interest
An article by marketing consultant and speaker Terry Mandel encourages us to revisit the meaning of the word competition. He suggests that by moving from an us-versus-them mindset and toward the original meaning of the word—”striving together”—we can regard competitors as mirrors reflecting a direction in which we should be moving.
HANDOUT 8.1
Historical Applications
DIRECTIONS
Read the following statements and answer Agree or Disagree, depending on the extent to which you agree with the truth of the statement. Think of the degree to which the statement matches your way of thinking. If you both agree and disagree with a given statement, try to determine which choice you’d agree with just slightly more than the other choice. Instead of a 50/50 response, then, you would consider the statement as a choice between 51/49 percent; you would favor one response slightly more than the other. (There are no trick questions here. Simply tell if you agree or disagree with the statements.)
Place a check 
in the appropriate box to the right of each statement.
HANDOUT 8.2
How Machiavellian Are You?
INTERPRETATION
Because there are 13 items, if you had 7 or more in one category, then that is your “majority” category. Which category, Agree or Disagree, is your majority category? ___________
Now let’s see how open you are to influences that do not represent typical sources of knowledge acquisition. In all likelihood, you agreed with at least 7 of the statements. Would it “shock” you to learn that these 13 paraphrased statements are taken from The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli? Written 500 years ago, the book has become synonymous with words such as “duplicity” and “deceit.” Yet, much of what it endorses makes sense for today’s leader, manager, and/or influencer.
Does a majority of Agree answers mean you are Machiavellian, in the most negative sense of the word? No, not at all. It means simply that no one thing is 100 percent “right” or 100 percent “wrong.” Even in The Prince there is wisdom from which we can profit. But . . . if you are not open, you won’t be able to spot the worth; your stamp of “worthless” will prevent you from seeing worth in hard realities. If you take no risks into the unpopular or unknown, you will not be able to optimize or reify possibilities that lie hidden in the here and now.
Remember that selling a particular service, product, or proposal to others depends on your understanding of the current reality and your ability to remain mentally flexible or open to new ideas. Not until you have achieved these mental states can you create the new reality. It’s often true that “if you build it, they will come,” but if you don’t hear or see the opportunities calling to you, you will never be able to turn them into new realities.
HANDOUT 8.3
What Would You Do?
DIRECTIONS
“Doing the right thing” involves making tough choices. What’s “right” for one person may be wrong for another—even though the given action might be totally within the bounds of propriety and policy. In the blank space beneath each scenario, tell what course of action you would have taken and why. Be prepared to answer the questions that follow each real-life case study, too. Determine if the person in the case study used masterful behavior. Consider whether or not the behavior reflected the positive or negative aspects of Machiavellianism and/or manipulation.
1.Brenda believed she had to work harder than most men to make it in her company, a major defense contractor. She worked hard, perhaps harder than she had to, and let her work speak for itself. She was often described as a straight-shooting, no-nonsense manager whose loyalty to the firm and whose honesty were impeccable. She made progress but didn’t reach the levels she had set as goals for herself by a certain time. She was discussing the situation one day with Judy, another manager who was moving very rapidly along her own career path. In an effort to be helpful, Judy suggested if Brenda were willing to use her “feminine wiles,” she could move ahead more rapidly.
If you were Brenda, what would you have done? ___________
a.Are there ethical issues involved in using one’s feminine or masculine “wiles”? If so, what are they?
b.What are the criteria by which people move rapidly ahead in a corporate setting?
c.Relate this statement by Don Petersen, former head of Ford Motor Company—“Results depend on relationships”—to this situation.
2.Mark was known throughout the department as being a “stand-up kind of guy”—respected by everyone for his honesty, trustworthiness, and dependability. Jerry Fletcher, his boss, asked to see him one day and explained that he had heard “rumblings” about the sexist behavior of a particular employee—behavior that was not visible whenever Jerry was in the vicinity. Despite Jerry’s frequently stated policy about sexual harassment, Jerry suspected the lack of formal complaint didn’t mean there was no problem. He worried that one day, someone would simply decide enough was enough and would file a lawsuit. Consequently, he asked Mark to spy on the employee and to report back to him.
If you were Mark, what would you have done? _____________
a.What possible reasons could explain why there might be no formal complaints in a situation like this?
b.What does the law state regarding behaviors that constitute sexual harassment?
c.On what factors should Mark base his decision to do or not do what his boss is asking?