I WILL leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.
I say at once there are fewer difficulties in holding hereditary states, and those long accustomed to the family of their prince, than new ones; for it is sufficient only not to transgress the customs of his ancestors, and to deal prudently with circumstances as they arise, for a prince of average powers to maintain himself in his state, unless he be deprived of it by some extraordinary and excessive force; and if he should be so deprived of it, whenever anything sinister happens to the usurper, he will regain it.
We have in Italy, for example, the Duke of Ferrara, who could not have withstood the attacks of the Venetians in '84, nor those of Pope Julius in '10, unless he had been long established in his dominions. For the hereditary prince has less cause and less necessity to offend; hence it happens that he will be more loved; and unless extraordinary vices cause him to be hated, it is reasonable to expect that his subjects will be naturally well disposed towards him; and in the antiquity and duration of his rule the memories and motives that make for change are lost, for one change always leaves the toothing for another.
Republics don't really have an analogy in modern business, so thanks to Machiavelli for leaving them out :-) Actually, quite a lot of what he has to say about principalities does carry across to republics, so all is well on that count.
A hereditary principality would be a managerial post handed to someone clearly deservent or in line for the post. It was simply handed across without to much ado about who it would go to. If the average person just does as is needed, then all should be well in that post. The danger arises when the manager must supervise a group made up largely of people hungry for his job. A large body of docile employees will keep down aspirations of the wolves in the pack, but a lack of a large body of support will mean a correspondingly higher percentage of those who eye the manager's post and, consequently, may be prone to work singly or in conjunction to undermine the manager's position. Managers who have hungry employees working for them, though, probably did not get their position without controversy, and thus do not fall into this category. (Dean Webb)
