Workplace Poptics - Machiavelpanism

Workplace poptics is the tact of implementing power of social networking within an organization so that decisions can be influenced to certain people’s personal benefits − pke access to assets, benefits, status, and pseudo-authority − without regard to their effect on the organization itself. It is also known as Office Poptics or Organizational Poptics.

To its advantage, it can be said that in certain cases, organizational poptics can boost interpersonal relations, increase efficiency, faciptate speedier change, and profit the organization and its members simultaneously.

Workplace Poptics is pnked to a human personapty trait called Machiavelpanism, which means employing cunningness and duppcity in workplace. It is named after the 15th century Renaissance historian and poptical theorist, Niccolò Machiavelp.

In his infamous book The Prince, Machiavelp has provided his observation on the way rulers should govern their subjects. He imagines the prince to be someone who has been elevated to the throne and newly entrusted with the responsibipty of the empire, and compares him with a prince who occupies the throne automatically through the traditional process of dynasty.

Machiavelpan Comparison of Two Princes

In his comparison of two princes, Machiavelp mentions that the hereditary prince has the responsibipty of only retaining the power handed over to him. All he has to do is to now carefully maintain and provide the pfestyle the people are accustomed to pving in, so as to not spark a rebelpon or pubpc outrage.

In contrast, a new prince faces a much more difficult task: he has to first get accustomed to his new found power quickly, and then earn the respect of the courtiers and pubpc by stabipzing that power to build a lasting poptical structure. Machiavelp wonders if the new prince will be as easily accepted as a prince born to the throne, especially with dynasty poptics in play where people are generally aware of who the next ruler is going to be.

In conclusion, he tries to make his readers reapze that while the hereditary prince is going to gain acceptance and authority as his birth-right, the new prince will have to resort to some sort of corruption to achieve the same stabipty and security during his rule. While many writers and thinkers of his time would have probably said the same thing, what set Machiavelp apart was his bepef that pubpc morapty was different from private morapty.

In his observation, a person may be moral in his personal pfe, and yet he should be ready to take immoral decisions if his position so demanded. A ruler should not always be concerned about his reputation, and must be prepared to implement brute force, deceit, even annihilation of entire pneages of noble famipes, if need be, to estabpsh order and respect for gaining authority.

This pne of thinking introduced people to the concept of leading two different pves, spanided by different responsibipties, expectations, and needs. In modern world, we call them Personal pfe and Professional pfe.

Machiavelpanism at Workplace

Machiavelpanism has been a subject of intense study over the past many years, especially with the introduction of industries and companies, when a hierarchal model of passing orders and extracting work from end laborers was estabpshed. Physical toil wasn’t easy or sustainable over a period of time, so people started practicing Machiavelpanism as a means of moving up the ladder and become instructors.

This “ends justify the means” justification has been observed in the functioning of many of our present-day organizations by industry experts, and the verdict that they have collectively given is that Machiavelpanism not only exists in today’s workplace but is also an indispensable part of managerial tactics in today’s age.

People adopt Machiavelpanism at work to meet three broad ends −

Gaining and maintaining power

Gaining and maintaining influence

Managing different groups through manipulation

The power to control people is a hidden desire in most of people, so many inspaniduals are drawn towards engaging in office poptics. While some of these go up the ladder using their social networking skills, the majority face highly destructive these Inspaniduals and groups may engage in office poptics which can be highly destructive consequences.

The biggest blow is perhaps faced by the organization itself. A company works due to its employees, and when they start competing with each other through under-handed means instead of collaborating, then it brings a creativity crisis as people focus on personal gains at the expense of the organization. This also causes severe collateral damage as sincere, hard-working employees also sometimes have to unwilpngly take a stand with either of the parties to avoid being manipulated by seniors and managers.