Interesting link. I took a read of that chapter, and found this paragraph additionally enlightening: > I say that the conduct of Manlius is more praiseworthy a

Interesting link. I took a read of that chapter, and found this paragraph additionally enlightening: > 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?