- 1 Introduction: The Final Theme Was “The Loss of Power”
- 2 The Case: A Visionary Founder’s Rise and Fall
- 3 What Machiavelli Actually Taught — Beyond “Ruthless Cunning”
- 4 Where the Case and The Prince Converge — The Anatomy of a Downfall
- 5 When Power Becomes Its Own Purpose — The Most Dangerous Trap
- 6 Metacognition: The Only Harness Against Runaway Power
- 7 “Everyone Has Machiavellian Intelligence” — A Crucial Self-Awareness
- 8 The Foundation of Power Is More Fragile Than It Appears
- 9 Organizational Logic vs. Personal Conscience — The Question Posed by Chiune Sugihara
- 10 What the Founder’s Final Years Taught Me
- 11 Conclusion: Power Must Be Wielded With Love
- 12 Recommended Books
Introduction: The Final Theme Was “The Loss of Power”
The six-session Globis MBA course “Power and Influence” has come to an end.
Starting with foundational definitions in Day 1, each session expanded the scope of influence: from subordinates to superiors, across departments, across organizations, and ultimately across society. I had assumed the course would focus on the skills of acquiring and exercising power. Instead, the final session confronted us with something far more unsettling: the loss of power and the challenge of governing yourself.
The case study examined a retail industry founder who revolutionized an entire sector with a noble vision, only to lose everything when power became its own purpose. The assigned reading was Machiavelli’s The Prince. Renaissance Italy and postwar Japanese retail — two worlds that seemed to have nothing in common — converged in remarkable ways throughout the discussion.
In this article, I want to share the lessons from Day 6 and the conclusions I reached across all six sessions about how leaders should relate to power.
The Case: A Visionary Founder’s Rise and Fall
The main case in Day 6 told the story of a founder who transformed Japan’s postwar retail industry.
At the core of his mission was an unwavering belief: “Quality goods at fair prices should be accessible to every consumer.” Rooted in his wartime experiences, he set out to reshape the distribution system itself to bring material prosperity to postwar Japan.
“Pricing power belongs to retailers, not manufacturers.” “Everything for the consumer.” Under this clear-cut philosophy, he strategically combined positional power (total authority as founder) with relational power (ties to consumers and media) to dismantle entrenched trade practices.
He was, in many ways, the embodiment of everything we had learned from Day 1 through Day 5: a compelling vision, strong personal power, masterful relationship-building, and the strategic acumen to deploy every tool at his disposal.
What Machiavelli Actually Taught — Beyond “Ruthless Cunning”
The other pillar of Day 6 was Machiavelli’s The Prince.
The word “Machiavellian” conjures images of ruthless, ends-justify-the-means calculation. “A prince need not keep his word.” “It is better to be feared than loved.” Taken at face value, these sound like a dictator’s playbook.
But in class, we carefully examined Machiavelli’s life and historical context.
Born in 1469 into a declining Florentine noble family, Machiavelli was appointed as a diplomat at 29. When the Medici returned to power, he was dismissed and imprisoned. He wrote The Prince during his subsequent exile, dedicating it to the new Medici ruler. He briefly regained a consultative role but lost it again when the Medici were expelled. He died at 58, largely forgotten.
In other words, The Prince was not a “manual of domination” written by someone in power. It was a bureaucrat’s textbook, written by a man who had lost power, for the next ruler — an attempt to shape how that ruler would govern.
What struck me most in class was the idea of reading the text on two levels:
- Surface reading: Flattering the prince, seemingly endorsing manipulation
- Deeper reading: Demanding “be a competent autocrat” — packaged as advice to win the prince’s favor
Behind it all lay a deep sorrow over decades of political instability and a fierce love for Florence. Machiavelli was a quintessential Renaissance thinker who favored mixed government (combining elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) and was among the first to separate Christian morality from political theory.
Many of his most notorious teachings change meaning entirely depending on whether you read them literally or in context.
“Be feared, but never hated” (Chapter 17) is not an endorsement of fear-based rule — it is about balancing firmness with the trust of your people. “Better to be called miserly than to bankrupt the state” (Chapter 16) means prioritize sustainable governance over short-term popularity. “Undertake great enterprises that captivate your subjects” (Chapter 21) speaks to the essence of vision-driven leadership.
On the other hand, teachings like “break promises when necessary” and “it is enough to appear virtuous” (Chapter 18) remain genuinely troubling. Feigned integrity inevitably collapses, and trust, once lost, is nearly impossible to rebuild.
The key takeaway: neither wholesale acceptance nor wholesale rejection of The Prince is the right approach. What matters is understanding the context in which it was written and applying your own judgment to decide what to take and what to leave behind.
Where the Case and The Prince Converge — The Anatomy of a Downfall
The most heated discussion in class centered on how the founder’s management style mirrored The Prince — and why he ultimately fell.
Strikingly Parallel Patterns
Drawing clear lines between allies and enemies while positioning himself as the righteous party (Chapter 21). Masterful use of media as an information weapon (Chapter 18). Creating situations that guaranteed victory rather than merely reacting (Chapter 25). Whether consciously or not, this founder was a “Machiavellian CEO.”
So Why Did He Fall?
The case discussion revealed three interconnected causes:
First, failure to adapt to a changing environment. He had built a model perfectly optimized for a mass-consumption society. But when consumer values shifted, he clung to the old playbook.
Second, the collapse of his governance structure. He pushed away capable advisors and concentrated authority among family members and loyalists. He emotionally expelled anyone who disagreed, surrounding himself only with people who would say yes. This was the worst possible application of Chapter 23’s advice that “counsel should only be given when the prince requests it.”
Third, the erosion of his base of support. Consumers may have loved him, but he had failed to build genuine respect and trust among his executives, employees, and industry peers. “Loved by consumers, feared by the organization and industry, and ultimately abandoned by both” — that was the essence of his downfall.
When Power Becomes Its Own Purpose — The Most Dangerous Trap
The single most important lesson from this case was the phenomenon of power becoming its own end.
The founder’s starting point was noble. He acquired power for a deeply held purpose, wielded influence skillfully, and genuinely revolutionized an industry. Up to that point, he exemplified everything we had learned about the proper use of power.
But somewhere along the way, holding onto power itself became the goal.
Power was originally a means to realize an ideal. Over the years, however, maintaining that power — staying in the seat of authority — quietly became the objective. And this transformation is nearly invisible to the person experiencing it.
Why can’t leaders see it happening? The course introduced several theoretical frameworks:
Locus of Control
Proposed by Rotter (1966), this concept describes how people with a strong internal locus of control develop deep conviction that their actions are right. The more success they accumulate, the stronger this becomes, leading to the belief that “since what I’m doing is correct, everyone should follow my lead.” For leaders with extraordinary track records, this internal certainty becomes virtually unshakable.
Escalation of Commitment
Identified by Staw (1981), this describes the irrational tendency to keep doubling down on past decisions to prove they were right. Changing the beliefs that drove earlier success feels like repudiating your past self. So even when the environment changes, you cannot change course. This is a trap that any leader can fall into.
Perspectival Fixation (Nietzsche)
Borrowing from Nietzsche, this is the state of being locked into a single viewpoint, unable to adopt alternative perspectives. You lose the ability to see the characteristics of your own thinking and attribute all success to your personal abilities.
When these forces combine, opportunities for self-reflection disappear, collaboration is devalued, and other people become nothing more than resources for achieving your objectives. Every individual’s capabilities have limits — but these dynamics make it impossible to recognize those limits.
Metacognition: The Only Harness Against Runaway Power
So how do you prevent power from becoming self-serving?
The answer offered in class was metacognition — the ability to observe your own behavior from a third-person perspective.
Three specific approaches were discussed:
1. Self-reflection. Build a regular habit of examining your own actions and decisions. Keep asking: “Why did I make this decision?” and “Is this truly the right means for my purpose?”
2. Third-party feedback. Deliberately create an environment where you receive uncomfortable truths. The founder’s greatest failure was his refusal to keep advisors who would challenge him. Without mechanisms for objective evaluation, you simply cannot detect distortions in your own judgment.
3. Continuous learning. Keep exposing yourself to new knowledge and perspectives. Success tends to make learning feel unnecessary, but the humility to admit “there are things I don’t know” serves as the brake that prevents a leader from going off the rails.
A contrasting example from class was the case of Nintendo. Its president, at age 68, announced an early transition of leadership to a 46-year-old managing director — during the company’s best-ever financial year. Choosing to step back at the height of success is a decision that only a leader with strong metacognitive capacity can make.
The case founder could not do this. He had so deeply identified with his organization that stepping away felt like abandoning his own child. How difficult it is for a founder to hand over the reins at the peak of glory — this is something that is easy to understand intellectually but extraordinarily hard to do when you are the one living it.
“Everyone Has Machiavellian Intelligence” — A Crucial Self-Awareness
The single most memorable insight from Day 6 was this: everyone is capable of unleashing their Machiavellian intelligence.
Humans possess an innate influence motive — the desire to act upon others and shape their behavior. When this drive intensifies, it leads to the rationalization that “since what I’m doing is right, it’s natural to impose it on others.”
Reflecting on my own career as an IT manager with 28 years of experience, I can recall moments after a project success when I was tempted to push my approach on colleagues without regard for their context. That is not “exercising influence” — it is raw Machiavellian intelligence on display. This is precisely why we need to put a harness on this instinct. The tools for doing so are metacognition, self-reflection, and feedback from others.
The Foundation of Power Is More Fragile Than It Appears
The class also introduced Etienne de La Boetie’s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. La Boetie posed a deceptively simple question: “Why do people submit to those in power?”
His answer: rulers mistake their position for something they earned through personal merit, when in reality people are simply enduring the situation “for the sake of the organization.” In other words, the foundation of power is far more fragile than it appears. The case founder’s downfall followed this exact pattern. His power seemed unassailable as long as people around him were voluntarily submitting “for the good of the company.” The moment that voluntary compliance dissolved, everything collapsed at once.
The class identified three factors that cause leaders to lose power: envy from others, retaliation from cornered opponents, and the leader’s own unchecked desires. These may seem like separate issues, but they share a single root: when a leader loses the trust of those around them, all three activate simultaneously.
Organizational Logic vs. Personal Conscience — The Question Posed by Chiune Sugihara
Near the end of Day 6, we discussed the contrast between Adolf Eichmann and Chiune Sugihara. Eichmann claimed he was “just following orders.” Sugihara, a Japanese diplomat, defied his government’s explicit instructions to issue transit visas to thousands of Jewish refugees, saving their lives. Follow the organization’s logic, or follow your own moral compass — the higher a leader rises, the more inescapable this tension becomes. As Japanese business leader Kazuhiko Toyama has noted, navigating this tension requires “a courage that borders on madness.”
What the Founder’s Final Years Taught Me
The pre-class assignment for Day 6 asked us to reflect on the founder’s later years. For me, this turned out to be the most personally meaningful part of the entire course.
Even after stepping back from active management, the founder reportedly devoted himself to educating the next generation. And in his final years, he expressed regret about his family relationships.
What this suggested to me is that the power and fame built during an active career may hold only limited value when measured against the full span of a human life.
What ultimately remained was not the scale of his business or his position, but the desire to pass on his ideals to the next generation — and regret about the human connections he had neglected.
Titles and fame erode with time. But personal convictions, and relationships with people who share them, can sustain a person to the very end. More than “what you achieve,” the real question is “what you believe in and live by” — that was the most personal realization I took from Day 6.
Conclusion: Power Must Be Wielded With Love
Looking back across all six sessions, the design was masterful. Days 1 through 5 taught us how to acquire and exercise power. Day 6 confronted us with how power is lost — and what it is ultimately for. Skills alone are not enough. Power requires purpose, and sustaining that purpose requires self-awareness.
The message our instructor shared at the very end still resonates:
“Power is waiting — right now — to be wielded by leaders who recognize its meaning, its strength, and its danger, and who carry love for others as they forge the future.”
Power is neither good nor evil. It is a tool. The case founder was brilliant at acquiring and wielding it, but he lost everything by losing sight of his purpose and shutting down his own capacity for self-reflection.
As I continue to navigate power in my own career, I want to hold onto three commitments: constantly reexamine the purpose of my power, create an environment where I receive honest, uncomfortable feedback, and stay aware that everyone — including me — carries Machiavellian intelligence, and never stop the work of metacognition and learning.
I will close with the words of Nanami Shiono:
“Power and the desire for power deserve criticism only when possessed by those who lack both the ability to use them effectively and the magnanimity to let others do so.”
Whether you can become a leader who wields power responsibly — that is not a question you answer once and move on. It is a question you must keep asking for the rest of your life.
Recommended Books
