Personal power v. socialized power: What Machiavelli and St. Francis can tell us about modern CEOs

"Niccolò Machiavelli, the infamous author of " The Prince," wrote in the 1500s that the ideal leader makes and breaks solemn agreements. He creates alliances with weak allies to defeat a powerful enemy and then eliminates them one by one. He blames his next-in-charge for his own mistakes, and he executes opponents in public. St. Francis of Assisi was the antithesis of a Machiavellian leader."

"Born in 1181, the future saint renounced his father's wealth, then spent the remainder of his life wandering around northern Italy as a beggar and preacher. Francis gained a reputation for extreme humility - but certainly he was not weak. He dealt with popes, nobles and even an Egyptian sultan. He founded a religious order, the Franciscans, that survives today."

"In modern times, Machiavellian leaders abound in the corporate world. Perhaps more surprisingly, many other business leaders resemble Francis: humble and self-effacing, but by no means weak. In our research, we argue that two types of motivation help to explain these vast and enduring differences in leadership. 'Two faces of power' Psychologists have long been fascinated by people's nonconscious motives - and how to measure them. One influential assessment, developed in the 1930s, is the Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT."

Leadership behaviors reflect two enduring motivational types: personal power and socialized power. Personal power motivates domination, alliance-building for conquest, blame-shifting, and public punishment. Socialized power motivates humility, service, principled influence, and coalition-building without exploitation. Historical exemplars include Machiavellian tactics of manipulation and ruthless elimination, and Franciscan humility combined with effective negotiation and institution-building. Psychologists measure these motives using projective methods like the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), which analyzes narratives about ambiguous images to reveal power-related themes that predict leadership style. These motivational differences appear across historical and contemporary leaders, influencing behaviors in political and corporate settings.

Read at The Conversation