Why Fair Bosses Fall Behind

I'm inclined to agree with you, but the problem with that claim is that it is practically unfalsifiable. Nobody has or is going to try an experiment where they put someone like Jobs elsewhere and deliberately constrain his recruitment access only to average or slightly mediocre people. So, we can assume it's because dynamic, powerful leaders attract good talent, but I don't think there's a solid empirical basis for that without consistently studying what happens when they are specifically denied good talent.

There could be a million different reasons why he was picked over her. For one, it might simply be discrimination from the owners and/or share holders or one particularly influential share holder. Or he was better connected and/or was playing politics better than she did. Or for many other reasons...

And the other study just showed how a first impression will influence how we perceive people. They have absolutely nothing backing up the theory that a "fair" manager will lose to an "unfair, tough" manager in promotions.

If you ask me, they are missing quite a few links and connections in their theory and are mixing correlation with causation.

> how manlius torquatus by harshness, and valerius corvinus by gentleness, acquired equal glory.

> I conclude, then, that the character and conduct of Valerius is advantageous in a prince, but pernicious in a citizen, not only as regards his country, but also in regard to himself; pernicious for the state, because they prepare the way for a tyranny; and for himself, because in rendering him suspect to his fellow-citizens, it constrains them to take precautions against him that will prove detrimental to him. And, on the other hand, I affirm that the severity of Manlius is dangerous to the interests of a prince, but favorable to a citizen, and above all to the country. And it seldom turns to his prejudice, unless the hatred which it excites should be embittered by the suspicions which his great reputation and other virtues may inspire; as we will show when speaking of Camillus in the next chapter.

sounds like the real problem here is the board valuing the perception of power over actual managerial competence.

I think this problem is endemic; the thing is, business is hard. Most people give up on trying to find the best person for the job and go with the best-looking person, or the person who other people think is the best.

The thing is, "the wisdom of the crowd" works fairly well if all members of the crowd make up their own mind independently. But that's not how it works; nearly everyone decides largely based on what they think other people think, which breaks the whole system.

I think the rise of mutual funds, index funds, and other vehicles to invest without thinking about the companies you are buying are making this problem worse. People are giving their money to people who make money as long as they don't do anything wildly divergent from the herd.

> I say that the conduct of Manlius is more praiseworthy and less perilous for a citizen who lives under the laws of a republic; inasmuch as it operates entirely for the benefit of the state, and can never favor private ambition. For by such conduct a man can never create any partisans for himself; severe towards everybody, and devoted only to the public good, a commander by such means will never gain any particular friends, such as we have called partisans. Thus this course of conduct can only be of the greatest benefit and value in a republic, as it looks only to the public good, and is in no way open to the suspicion of individual usurpation. But with the system of Valerius, quite the contrary is the case; for although it produces the same effects so far as the public service is concerned, yet it is calculated to inspire doubts and mistrust, on account of the special devotion of the soldiers to their chief to which it will give rise, and which might be productive of bad effects against the public liberty, in case of his being continued in command for any length of time.

So Machiavelli is basically saying in the context of a republic, it is better for a commander to rule through terror/harshness (what the article calls power) rather than respect. The reason being is that gaining respect will cause the commander to gain friends (the person commanding via terror will have none/few friends) and make that commander a risk to the state by being a potential tyrant.

Given this, it's not surprising that Machiavelli advocates Manlius over Valerius, since the behavior of Valerius is in the end disadvantageous to everybody else.

However, does this really apply to a company? Most simply aren't run as a republic, but more of a benevolent dictatorship. So even if a if a manager does rise up to be the new CEO (a "tyrant"), it's probably because whoever appoints the CEO (the board?) thought he would make a better CEO than the last guy, so in the end the company is the one that benefits -- not just the individual.

In fact the article later points out (on the second page) that the CEO who ruled through harshness/terror was later kicked out for poor performance. Maybe commanding through respect is better for companies after all?