A contemporary interpretation of Machiavelli’s opinion on mercenaries and auxiliary troops.
In 1513, Machiavelli wrote *Il Principe*, or *The Prince*. The book is best known for its cynical-realistic approach to political power; the ends justify the means. The prince is advised not to be too soft and to always keep the state’s interests in mind. Management “by fear” is clearly Machiavelli’s preference.
Less well-known is his aversion to using mercenaries or foreign auxiliary troops, perhaps because there seems to be little modern context for this.
Or is there…
Il Principe
In his book, Machiavelli writes, among other things: “The fundamental problem with mercenaries is that they are loyal to their pay, not to the prince, and a salary alone is insufficient motivation for a man to sacrifice his life…”. Mercenaries are often hired left and right, and often a third party is appointed to lead them:
“… This problem is even more pronounced when considering the captain of the mercenaries. If he is a capable man, he might aspire to the throne himself and take over the prince’s nation by force. If he is incapable, then he will lead the prince’s nation to ruin through his incompetence.”
Machiavelli finds the deployment of (friendly) auxiliary troops even more dangerous. Unlike mercenaries, they do form a unit and are therefore even more capable of taking control. Moreover, they obey their own prince first. In Machiavelli’s view, that prince is, of course, eager to take over. He concludes, therefore, that no kingdom can be safe without having its own armed forces, composed solely of its own people.
The Consultant
Not much seems to have changed since Machiavelli. In an environment where people speak of strategy, hostile takeovers, targets, marketing attack plans, project war-room briefings, the war on talent; where there is corporate espionage, trench wars, patent battles, email bombs; in such an environment, Machiavellian reflexes towards the mercenary, or “the external consultant,” are also activated.
And so, in modern jargon, people speak of a flexible workforce, allowing the company to adapt to economic fluctuations, hiring expertise it does not have in-house, and outsourcing non-core tasks. At the same time, paymasters are instructed: keep them on a short leash, they are only here for the money, they are not loyal, ensure you get the cheapest in the house. And if the consultant indeed leaves a month later for €5 more, they chorus: you see!
The Interim Manager
The fear of the hired “captain” seems to run even deeper. He is expected to lead a team of consultants and in-house staff, but formal authorities are never put in writing. Heaven forbid he might gain too much power! The “prince” reports the successes and victories achieved by his “captain,” while setbacks are invariably blamed on the interim manager in front of the steering committee. High-performing employees are rewarded by their own manager to strengthen loyalty, while bad news conversations are gladly left to the interim.
The Partners
Machiavelli already said it: mercenaries are troublesome, but beware when you bring in a complete, well-organized army. Not only are the paymasters brought in now, but also armies of lawyers, to create as airtight a structure as possible. And after months of negotiations, it is proudly announced that “IT” is now 10% cheaper.
The entire department is outsourced, only to realize a few years later that no one even knows the true value of the services being provided. The airtight contract begins to leak, service quality drops, and costs start to rise. At which point we hire other partners to benchmark our sourcing partner. Machiavelli’s fear is realized: we are now managed by our partner!
And so, we start looking for a new partner, or better yet, multiple partners. Divide and conquer becomes the new motto; we split our department into “lots” while keeping control ourselves. Well, “ourselves” – we prefer to hire another expert for that. The original goal of focusing on core tasks and outsourcing what others can do better has become a dogma. The dreamt-of savings have been nullified by a complex management organization or have been achieved at the expense of service quality.
The ultimate result: re-insourcing, in line with recommendations from the 16th century!
The Way Forward
When we talk about focusing on core tasks, we genuinely believe that others can perform certain tasks better and more efficiently. At the same time, it seems that emotionally, we struggle to let go of the “mercenary” fear. As various examples above suggest, we see external parties as adversaries rather than partners, and primarily look for ways to protect ourselves, keep the partner “in check,” and squeeze as much out of them as possible. Ultimately, this leads to our fear becoming a reality: the external partner indeed becomes an adversary, sometimes even in court.
From Machiavelli’s worldview, there is only one solution to this problem, but it no longer fits the current times. A healthy mix of in-house staff and specialist partners seems to address the Machiavellian objections while achieving the desired focus on core tasks. Additionally, there is the human side, the emotional aspect, which probably hasn’t changed much since Machiavelli’s time. The “us versus them” mentality must be avoided, starting with communication.
What is the “smell of the place” in your company? Does it smell of distrust towards partners, is every conflict resolved with escalation, do consultants leave unexpectedly, and do contract negotiations last longer than the implementation? Or is there a search for the real win-win, the underlying motivations, and genuine collaboration?
This article also appeared in the ChangeVision Glossy “The smell of the place”.
IT Consultants, modern mercenaries? by Gerrit Dekker is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
