A Machiavelli Streak in Management

You've likely heard of Machiavellianism.  It's seldom used positively.

It originated from the book, The Prince, written in 1532 about the rise of a new leader; it's considered the first example of modern political philosophy.  The book explores the philosophy that the ends (glory and survival) may justify immoral means (corruption and killing) for rulers.

Since then, the term Machiavellianism has been used by psychologists to describe a person's tendency to be unemotional, and therefore able to detach him or herself from conventional morality. By doing so, one can deceive and manipulate others for their own gain without feeling guilty for their actions.

In the experiment illustrated above, psychologists separated participants into 2 groups.

• Group 1 was made to feel like they "were in a high power position" 
• Group 2 was made to feel like they "were in a low power position"  

They were then asked to draw "Es" on their foreheads.

Participants in high-power Group 1 were 3x as likely to draw the E on their forehead so it was forwards for themselves but backwards for others, suggesting they are less likely to consider other people's views (more here).

In order to obtain power, people usually need a high level of social intelligence.  They also exhibit dynamic and engaging personalities.  It's once they achieve power that things change...

Studies show that once people assume positions of power, they tend to act more selfish, impulsive and aggressive (Source: Dacher Keltner, The Power Paradox) and have a harder time viewing the world "empathetically" (i.e., a more "Machiavellian mindset," drawing Es on their foreheads that look like 3s to everyone else).

What you see is a paradox of power:
The skills used to obtain power and lead effectively (i.e., high EQ) tend to evaporate once someone actually achieves power.

Luckily, people usually revolt against or leave this type of leader... it's only a matter of time.

Instead, it might be better to follow Lao-Tzu's advice:
"To lead the people, walk behind them."

Self-help is not the way to happiness

Self-help in America is big business -- an $11B business a year, in fact.  It's the same size as Nordstroms, Whole Foods or Black & Decker.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working.  According to the 2013 Happiness Index, the United States is ranked #17.  Not bad.  But, our less wealthy neighbors, Canada and Mexico, appear to be happier.

Why has America gone "gangbusters" over self-help?  

Well, I think it comes from our emphasis on the individual and democracy.  We've developed legends around the "self-made rags to riches" hero, which coincidentally shames those who have not achieved success in our "equal society" (see more here & here).

This status anxiety has led to two popular types of self-help:

1. How to be rich and powerful just like me (not me, Tamara... me, the hypothetical author)

2. Oh, you're not rich and powerful and loved?  You must have low self-esteem.  I can help.

Rather than see a professional, Americans typically prefer to try to solve their problems on their own or find a "silver bullet."  In fact, 10% of Americans are on anti-depressants, but most do not see a therapist.  Rather than taking time to develop happiness-inducing habits, we prefer to believe the snake oil of Joel Osteen, Suze Orman or Anthony Robbins

Like Alain de Botton says, "People are so proud to go the gym; so ashamed to go to the therapist."

Based on my Coursera class, Social Psychology by Scott Plous, there seems to be a few proven ways to improve happiness.