Niccolò Machiavelli, the notorious writer of The Prince, wrote within the 1500s that the perfect chief makes and breaks solemn agreements. He creates alliances with weak allies to defeat a robust enemy after which eliminates them one after the other. He blames his next-in-charge for his personal errors, and he executes opponents in public.
St. Francis of Assisi was the antithesis of a Machiavellian chief. Born in 1181, the longer term saint renounced his father’s wealth, then spent the rest of his life wandering round northern Italy as a beggar and preacher. Francis gained a repute for excessive humility—however definitely he was not weak. He handled popes, nobles and even an Egyptian sultan. He based a spiritual order, the Franciscans, that survives in the present day.
In trendy instances, Machiavellian leaders abound within the company world. Maybe extra surprisingly, many different enterprise leaders resemble Francis: humble and self-effacing, however under no circumstances weak. In our research, we argue that two forms of motivation assist to clarify these huge and enduring variations in management.
‘Two faces of energy’
Psychologists have lengthy been fascinated by folks’s nonconscious motives—and how one can measure them. One influential evaluation, developed within the Thirties, is the Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT. Folks write brief tales about ambiguous photos, and researchers then analyze the tales to see which themes emerge: what the author cares or worries about, and the way they see the world.
In 1970, psychologist David McClelland coined the phrase “the two faces of power” to explain two various kinds of energy that inspire folks, based mostly on his TAT analyses: private energy and socialized energy. Private energy is the motivation to dominate others. McClelland famous that individuals with a want for private energy have a tendency to make use of imagery that evokes “the ‘regulation of the jungle’ through which the strongest survive by destroying their adversaries.” Socialized energy, alternatively, goals to profit others.
McClelland famous that private energy was related to habits like heavy consuming, playing, aggressive impulses and accumulating “status provides,” like convertibles. Folks involved with the extra socialized side of energy, in the meantime, be a part of extra organizations and are extra apt to turn out to be officers in them, together with sports activities groups.
Just a few years later, McClelland and guide David Burnham revealed an article titled “Power is the Great Motivator,” elaborating on this fundamental hyperlink between energy motivation and chief effectiveness. By means of a collection of biographical vignettes and an evaluation of a giant firm, they confirmed that managers exhibiting a excessive diploma of socialized energy had been more practical than managers motivated by private energy.
Measuring motivation
It appeared to us that private energy, the “regulation of the jungle,” motivates the sorts of habits approvingly described by Machiavelli. Likewise, socialized energy appeared to underlie the forceful however altruistic habits of St. Francis and trendy so-called humble leaders.
However we confronted an issue: how one can measure motivation. Highly effective folks resembling world-class CEOs have little inclination to take TATs or reply questionnaires for admittedly humble students.
Within the Nineteen Nineties, psychologist David Winter confirmed that speeches, interviews and diplomatic texts reveal nonconscious motivation in the identical manner because the Thematic Apperception Check—demonstrating a technique to examine leaders’ views of energy. For instance, somebody pushed by a want for private energy typically tries to manage or regulate folks round them; makes an attempt to influence and persuade; and is anxious with fame, standing and repute.
Nevertheless, Winters’ procedures for analyzing texts are guide and sophisticated; it’s troublesome to course of numerous paperwork. Additionally, he targeted on private energy; socialized energy was not included in his coding procedures.
Phrases and motion
With the intention to overcome these limitations, we used computer-aided text analysis to investigate the language of CEOs in interviews and convention calls.
In a series of 2019 studies, which had been peer-reviewed and summarized within the Academy of Administration Proceedings, our staff recognized 40 Machiavellian and 40 humble CEOs. First, we took an in depth take a look at the forms of phrases and phrases that distinguished the 2 teams, shedding mild on the form of energy that motivates every one.
Utilizing these patterns, we created two “dictionaries” of phrases and phrases that expressed private energy and socialized energy. Language about robust, forceful actions, management, managing impressions, punishment and worry of failure, to call just a few themes, constituted the non-public energy dictionary. “Defeat,” “overrun” and “strafe,” for instance, appeared among the many phrases on the non-public energy listing. Themes resembling rewards, mentoring and optimistic relationships characterised the socialized energy dictionary.
Then, we used a computer program to scan a whole bunch of interviews and quarterly convention calls. The pc program calculated private and socialized energy scores for every of the CEOs.
Our staff additionally developed indexes of Machiavellian and humble chief habits—resembling smearing rivals and backing out of agreements, or making vital donations to charity, respectively—and measured all 80 CEOs.
We discovered very high correlations between energy motivation and CEO habits. CEOs with excessive private energy scores, based mostly on our evaluation of their interviews and convention calls, additionally tended to point out Machiavellian habits. CEO humble habits was positively associated to socialized energy.
Folks and earnings
Do these summary statistical outcomes actually imply something? Evidently.
Quite a few CEOs from our listing of humble executives have based or managed exceptionally profitable and people-oriented firms, together with Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway, Danny Wegman of Wegmans, and James Goodnight of the SAS Institute. A number of of the “humble” CEOs have appeared a number of instances on Fortune’s annual Best Companies to Work For list.
The Machiavellian CEO listing included Kenneth Lay of Enron fame and John Rigas, one of many founders of Adelphia Communications Company, who was convicted of fraud. Mark Hurd, one-time CEO of Hewlett Packard, appeared on Advanced’s listing of the worst chief executive officers in tech historical past. Usually, criticisms of “earnings over folks,” poor remedy of staff, scandals, lavish spending, lawsuits and accusations or convictions of fraud characterize lots of our Machiavellian CEOs.
McClelland and Burnham had been proper. Energy actually is the “nice motivator,” nevertheless it’s the kind of energy that makes the distinction.
William D. Spangler is an affiliate professor emeritus of administration at Binghamton University, State University of New York.
Aleksey Tikhomirov is a lecturer of public administration and coverage at Binghamton University, State University of New York.
This text is republished from The Conversation underneath a Inventive Commons license. Learn the original article.
