Reading Machiavelli in Preparation for Educational Leadership:
Towards a Secure and Realistic Perspective on Organizational Politics
Précis of paper presented at the CASEA/CCEAM Conference, University of New
Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada June 6-10, 2014.
as part of the Symposium for
Educational Leadership and the Securitization of Education: The Challenges of Individual,
Organizational and System Threats to Security
Carol E. Harris, Professor Emeritus
University of Victoria
Email: harrisce@uvic.ca
Abstract
Possibly no historical figure has provoked a stronger emotional response from organizational
leaders than Niccolò Machiavelli, seen variously as the epitome of evil (D’Andrea, 1970) or as a
sensible realist dispensing wise words of advice about personal and political security (e.g.,
Bobbitt, 2013; Ignatieff, 2013). Although he addressed his advice on leadership to a Medici
prince in the context of 16th century Italy, Machiavelli is read carefully today by many scholars
and practitioners of educational leadership, organizational theory and politics (English, 1992;
Migone, 2008; Hodgkinson, 1991), and avoided assiduously by others in these fields. In this
paper, I argue that educational leadership programmes would (and occasionally do) benefit
greatly from a close examination of Machiavelli’s depiction of the world as it is, rather than as
we would like it to be (Berlin, 1971; Bobbitt, 2013). This perspective joins a growing body of
administrative theory which includes realistic portrayals of both ethical action within institutions,
and ‘organizational evil,” be the latter overt, or possibly unacknowledged even to the perpetrator
(Blase & Blase 2002; Samier, 2008).
My paper is addressed to those who teach and take a graduate course in educational
leadership with a focus on the foundations; such a course has been called ‘Philosophy of
Leadership.’ Although my context is Canada in an era of neo-liberalism, my arguments apply
internationally, especially to countries of the Western philosophic and economic tradition. On of
my purposes in this symposium is to highlight the importance of questioning the world around us,
while refusing to accept simplistic answers to pressing issues -- whether theological, economic,
social, or educational (Berlin, 1971; Bourdieu, 1998). Another purpose is to outline a preferred
route to inquiry (Bates, 2002; Greene, 1995; Harris, 2008) that follows a wide variety of
knowledge sources and public commentary in strengthening an understanding of leadership. The
security of public schools, and the legitimacy of our university programmes – now dominated by
market imperatives (Burbules & Torres, 2000/2013; Giroux, 2007; Hyuslop-Margison &
Leonard, 2012; Samier, 2013; Yang, 2003) -- demand nothing less than a catholic approach to
reading the times in which we live. The writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, which I consider to be
foundational to the foundations, provide an excellent basis for debate about such issues.
Theoretical frames for the study call for an abandonment of the “dividing practices”
(Anderson & Grindberg, 1998) that, since the advent of the Theory Movement at mid-20th
century, have consumed educational administration. Instead, the argument goes, educational
administration ought to be returned to its original inter-dependence with foundational study
(Culbertson, 1988; Greenfield, 1978). Taking a critical stance towards the present era of neoliberal domination, I enlist the lessons of Machiavelli in eliciting debate aimed to “disrupt” the
status quo (Wilkinson & Eascott, 2013). My reading of Machiavelli, however, is influenced by R.
G. Collingwood’s (1946) insistence that history is far more than a series of events. Rather, each
happening has an “outside” (the fact of the event) and an “inside” (how the situation appears to
those embroiled in action). This view of history speaks to the fallacy of misinterpreting
Machiavelli’s 16th century advice in a 21st century context.
Two important features of leadership permeate Machiavelli’s writing – Virtù (i.e., human
ingenuity and enterprise) and Fortuna. I examine the first through the lens of an actual graduate
student assignment that discusses lessons gleaned from The Prince (Machiavelli, 1999), and in
which he explores the everyday school practice of two principals. In discussing the second
feature, Fortuna, I reiterate the necessity of combining The Prince with other foundational
material, using contemporary texts in philosophy – one of case studies of problematic leadership
situations (Hare & Portelli, 2003) and another in classical readings that span Plato to Nietzsche
and include King’s “letter from Birmingham Jail” (Temes, 1996), and the psychological
implications of “destructive obedience” in the Milgram experiments (Sibicky, 1996). A third text
(Rachels & Rachels, 2009) allows students to view Machiavelli within larger moral/ethical
debates, again spanning utilitarianism, cultural relativism and social contract theory, through to
feminist thought.
The paper holds implications, apart from examinations of contemporary socio-economic
situations, for graduate student pedagogy, curriculum, and research. The value of reading
Machiavelli inheres in his accurate portrayal of human frailty, and in the counter he provides to
the untenable portrayal of education leaders solely as exemplars of integrity, high motives, and
sterling values. In terms of security, the critical view put forward through revitalized foundational
studies has the potential to stimulate reflection and debate among graduate students, and – with
the inclusion of Machiavelli -- to provide useful guidelines for action. As well, it can restore
much needed credibility to university preparation programmes that have been severely
downgraded because of market-based efficiencies.
References
Anderson, G. L., & Grinberg, J. (1998). Educational administration as a disciplinary practice:
Appropriating Foucault’s view of power, discourse, and method. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 329-353.
Bates, R. (2002). Administering the global trap: The role of educational leaders. Educational
Management and Administration, 30, 139-156.
Berlin, I. (1971). The question of Machiavelli: A special supplement. The New York Review of
Books, November 4.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2002). The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principal
mistreatment. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 38(5), 671-727.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance: Against the tyranny of the market. New York: New
Press.
Brodie, J. (2009). From social security to public safety: Security discourses and Canadian
citizenship. University of Toronto Quarterly, 78, 3, 687-708.
Burbules, N., & Torres, C. (Eds.) (2013). Globalization and education: Critical perspectives.
London: Routledge.
Bobbitt, P. (2013). The garments of court and palace: Machiavelli and world that he made.
Grove Press.
Collingwood, R.G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Culbertson, J.A. (1988). A century’s quest for a knowledge base. In N.J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook
of research on educational administration (pp. 3-26). New York: Longman.
D’Andrea (1970). The political and ideological context of Innocent Gentillet’s anti-Machiavel.
Renaissance Quarterly, 23(4), 397.
English, F.W. (1992). The principal and The Prince: Machiavelli and school leadership. NACCP
Bulletin, 76, 10-15.
Giroux, H. (2007). The university in chains: Confronting the miliatary-industial-academic
complex. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Greenfield, T.B. (1978). Reflections on organization theory and the truths of irreconcilable
realities. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 14(2), 1-23.
Hare, W. & Portelli, J. (2003). What to do? Case studies for educators (Third edition). Halifax,
NS: EdPhil Books.
Harris, C. E. (2008). Exploring critical awareness through aesthetic experience: Implications for
the preparation of educational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration and
Foundations, 19(1), 55-80
Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. New York: SUNY.
Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Leonard, H.A. (2012). Post neo-liberalism and the humanities: What
the repressive state apparatus means for universities. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 42(2), 1-12.
Ignatieff, M. (2013). Machavelli was right. The Atlantic. accessed January 21, 2014, at
<www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/12/machiavelli-was-right/354672>
Machiavelli, N. (1999). The Prince (G. Bull, Trans.). London: Penguin.
Migone, A. (2008). Beyond foxes and lions: Machiavelli’s discourse on power and leadership. In
E.A. Samier & A.G. Stanley (Eds.), Political approaches to educational administration
and leadership (pp.23-36). London: Routledge.
Mullen, C.A., Samier, E. A., Brindley, S., English, F. W., & Carr, N. K. (2013) An epistemic
frame analysis of neoliberal culture and politics in the US, UK, and the UAE.
Interchange, 43(3), 187-228.
Rachels, J. & Rachels, S. (2009). The elements of moral philosophy (6th edition). Toronto:
McGraw-Hill.
Samier, E. A. (2013). Where have the disruptions gone? Educational administration’s theoretical
capacity for analyzing or fomenting disruption. International Journal of Ladership in
Education, 16(2), 234-244.
Samier, E. A. (2008). The problem of passive evil in educational administration, International
Studies in Educational Administration, 36(1), 2-21.
Sibicky, M.E. (1996). Understanding desctructive obedience: The milgram experiments. In P. S.
Temes (Ed.), Temes, P. S. (1995). Teaching leadership: Essays in theory and practice
(pp. 105-126). New York: Peter Lang.
Temes, P. S. (Ed.) (1996). Teaching leadership: Essays in theory and practice. New York: Peter
Lang.
Wilkinson, J., & Eacott, S. (Eds.) (2013) Special Edition: These disruptive times, International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(2).
Yang, R. (2003). Globalisation and higher education development: A critical analysis.
International Review of Education 49(3/4), 269-291.