Jesus or Machiavelli (01.04.25)

Jesus or Machiavelli?

My niece sent me a heart-felt message the other day. It was full of frustration and disappointment. She wrote, “So many ‘leaders’ hide behind sentences that are ‘right’ - ‘I empower my teams to lead as they know best’. Fashionable sentences. But do they really?”

It set me thinking about the place of philosophy in leadership discussions. Since its purpose is to understand the ‘why’ underpinning the ‘what’ and the ‘how’, it is (hopefully) immune from the latest fads.

After all, why should a person lead with integrity? And why should a leader care about their team? Answers to questions like these help us identify our principles, how we view the world and what we value. It’s not enough that something feels ‘right’ or ‘natural’; we need to know WHY it does, otherwise we could be expressing our bias or prejudices.

That means, the more self-aware we are, the more authentic our leadership style will be. But authentic to what? That’s the question. A psychopath is authentically psychopathic!

This is the problem with words. ‘Authentic’ has various meanings, ranging from the factually true to the emotionally appropriate. In other words, a psychopath acting psychopathically is authentic by one definition and not by another. It helps to know which one is being use.

That’s why I thought I’d compare the leadership styles of Jesus and Machiavelli, not just because they are opposites but because we have preconceived ideas about them. Most of us will be thinking: bad Machiavelli; good Jesus. But why and is this judgement fair?

Let’s start with the idea of the ‘authentic’ leader. Jesus is the gold standard of authenticity, being true to who he was and living what he preached, inspiring others to do likewise.

The Machiavellian leader is not authentic in this sense. They do not practice what they preach, and they are not necessarily true to themselves. This warrants condemnation but only if we fail to understand why. These people are pragmatists, they see the world as it is not as they wish it to be. They are interested in being effective and consequently, leadership is a balancing act between facts and strategic prowess.

What then of ethics? These leaders aren’t concerned about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, or whether a person has inherent moral worth. They are outcome-focused, and though it might be admirable to tell the truth it might not be practical to do so. If the only way to achieve X is to lie, then they will lie, and they will lie while pretending they are not. Decisions need to be realistic and workable if they are going to achieve their ends.

A Jesus-inspired leader is the flip-opposite. Their starting point is respect for others and a commitment to their well-being. They will always prioritise the needs of their team. This doesn’t mean they are not end-focused, but they seek to foster an environment of trust to enable personal and professional growth. They value collaboration and integrity. Where a Machiavellian believes ‘the ends justify the means, a servant-leader cultivates trust, inspires loyalty and encourages people to stay true to their values. They too have a clear vision of the company’s future, but they lead through example.

In short, the Machiavellian leader understands the realpolitik.  They don’t align themselves to an ethical theory or a set of values. They might be considered cynical, but at least they are not naïve. You won’t ‘pull the wool over their eyes’.

The Jesus approach is value-laden. Its starting point is the individual and its end is the collective good. It believes that people are inherently good, and a company will flourish when this is given full expression. To lead well is to lead by example.

Of course, a Machiavellian will ask for the empirical evidence to support these assumptions. As far as they are concerned, it’s a dog-eat-dog world. The ‘pure in spirit’ do not ‘inherit the earth’. And maybe they are right, but there are serious issues with their approach. After all, ethical considerations are usually more important than they realise. Staying within the law might not be sufficient for the long-term health of a company. Short-term, their methodology might work but over time staff will lose faith and the company’s reputation will suffer.

As my niece complained, it isn’t enough to say the right words; you have to mean them as well.