Misunderstanding machiavelli in management: metaphor, analogy and historical method 

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10149/58426
Title:
Misunderstanding machiavelli in management: metaphor, analogy and historical method 
Authors:
Macaulay, M. (Michael); Lawton, A. L. (Alan)
Citation:
Macaulay, M. J. and Lawton, A. L. (2003) 'Misunderstanding machiavelli in management: metaphor, analogy and historical method', Philosophy of Management, 3 (3), pp.17-30.
Publisher:
Reason in Practice Limited
Journal:
Philosophy of Management
Issue Date:
2003
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10149/58426
Abstract:
This article investigates some of the various ways in which theorists have used Machiavelli (and more specifically The Prince) in a business and management context and suggests that the two most common approaches, the use of the metaphor and use of the analogy, are both flawed. Metaphor often relies on a reading of Machiavelli that cannot be sustained, whereas analogy takes Machiavelli too far out of historical context. The article discusses how business and management can more usefully incorporate Machiavelli's ideas by placing them within a position of discourse, along the lines of Lockyer's historical method. The authors outline three potential discourses: those of humanism; of guides to leadership; and of power. In doing so the article suggests that in historic texts (in particular Machiavelli) can prove useful to students and practitioners of business and management.
Type:
Article
Keywords:
Machiavelli; business; management; metaphor; analogy; Lockyer, Andrew
ISSN:
1740-3812
Rights:
No publisher policy information on http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 22/01/2010]
Citation Count:
0 [Web of Science and Scopus, 22/01/2010]

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorMacaulay, M. (Michael)-
dc.contributor.authorLawton, A. L. (Alan)-
dc.date.accessioned2009-04-01T10:51:47Z-
dc.date.available2009-04-01T10:51:47Z-
dc.date.issued2003-
dc.identifier.citationPhilosophy of Management; 3 (3): 17-30-
dc.identifier.issn1740-3812-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10149/58426-
dc.description.abstractThis article investigates some of the various ways in which theorists have used Machiavelli (and more specifically The Prince) in a business and management context and suggests that the two most common approaches, the use of the metaphor and use of the analogy, are both flawed. Metaphor often relies on a reading of Machiavelli that cannot be sustained, whereas analogy takes Machiavelli too far out of historical context. The article discusses how business and management can more usefully incorporate Machiavelli's ideas by placing them within a position of discourse, along the lines of Lockyer's historical method. The authors outline three potential discourses: those of humanism; of guides to leadership; and of power. In doing so the article suggests that in historic texts (in particular Machiavelli) can prove useful to students and practitioners of business and management.-
dc.publisherReason in Practice Limited-
dc.rightsNo publisher policy information on http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 22/01/2010]-
dc.subjectMachiavelli-
dc.subjectbusiness-
dc.subjectmanagement-
dc.subjectmetaphor-
dc.subjectanalogy-
dc.subjectLockyer, Andrew-
dc.titleMisunderstanding machiavelli in management: metaphor, analogy and historical method -
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.journalPhilosophy of Management-
ref.assessmentRAE 2008-
ref.citationcount0 [Web of Science and Scopus, 22/01/2010]-
or.citation.harvardMacaulay, M. J. and Lawton, A. L. (2003) 'Misunderstanding machiavelli in management: metaphor, analogy and historical method', Philosophy of Management, 3 (3), pp.17-30.-
All Items in TeesRep are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.