Rules of the game for cut-throat cultures

Things aren't always straight forward. A look at how to navigate harsh environments through the lens of Machiavelli.

Introduction

Machiavelli laid out a stark, yet painfully honest interpretation of the human condition as it relates to acquisition and retention of power, those writings were later published as The Prince. Robert Greene gave a more contemporary perspective of those same truths in The 48 Laws of Power. These underlying truths talk to foundational aspects of the human condition. These truths are not well serviced by commentators and their endless deluge of vacuous platitudes about the difference between a boss and a leader. As security practitioners we are concerned with human behaviour and the consequences of that behaviour. We seek truth.

Sometimes the environments in which we need to work are not the rosy self-congratulatory circle jerks where massages and lattes are the standard running order of the day. We have to understand how to deal with stressful, and pressurised environments where the darker threads of humanity are on display. By necessity, ordinarily stable environments can become uncomfortable due to external factors. This might not be a permanent feature; it might be for a short time, but we need to know how to deal with this.

So the question is, how do we operate in cutthroat environments? I consider there are some useful rules that could be helpful for a security practitioner in navigating these types of environments.

To paraphrase Aristotle, “You are what you repeatedly do”. What are we then if we engage heavily in Machiavellian behaviour? Do we degenerate to a point where we are no longer recognisable? Or is it that we hold our values on such a pedestal that they cannot be realised due to the inherent contradiction of the human condition?

We aspire to be virtuous and hold pure intentions, but we are not pure. As security practitioners we have to deal with moral ambiguity and shades of grey. There is nuance, context, and subjectivity. This means a security practitioner has to tread a line, one that accepts the truth of human nature but one that seeks to achieve their mission. If their mission is to protect the organisation which they represent, then this will mean taking actions to limit others to achieve that higher objective. This might just be the complexities in understanding the needs of the greater good stacked against the individual sovereignty of others.

It has been said that everyone is the hero of their own story by necessity. This talks to how we see ourselves and how we interpret our environment relative to our vantage point. It is easy to see how, in a cutthroat environment, we can take refuge in the sense that we are the hero on a virtuous quest to save everything that ever was. But this doesn’t help us with the reality. Perhaps this is driven in part by the values we hold, maybe our view of those values is not as nuanced as it needs to be. And just like in reality, there might be a slightly more undesirable side to our values when we consider how they apply to our environments. No action is without consequence and as we apply our values through our actions, do we really consider the consequences?

At times we need to wear masks, conceal intent, and keep secrets. But this doesn’t have to come at the expense of truth or honesty. We are not required to be duplicitous, yet sometimes, and especially in a cutthroat environment we might just need to be. If not only to save ourselves then to promote a higher ideal.

So, what rules should we apply to this game?

Rule 1. Integrate yourself.

We are human, and being human means there are certain innate properties that are inherent in our construct. Not all of these properties are positive or desirable, but we must be able to control them. Remember the first time you felt visceral hatred, where nothing other than loathing consumed your thoughts. Then remember the next time, you had some control, and the next, more control. And at some point, you were able to sit across the table from someone who you would willingly throw under an electric bus, and smile.

In a cutthroat environment you will be tested constantly. To maintain composure, to disarm those who would hold fear over you as a weapon, you will need to control your temperament. Rash and emotional responses will not serve you well. As gratifying as it would be to unleash the wrath of an army of soccer moms towards the idiot who takes a cheap shot, it would only service self-gratification and subvert your higher purpose. But it’s good to have unleashed the kraken once in your life . . . . just to know what it’s like.

I’ve always had an appreciation for Carl Jung’s concept of the shadow self and how this should be integrated. It seems like a fitting counterpoint to understand how to not become consumed by Machiavellian power games and face your own corruption. Integrating your shadow back into your identity seems like a necessary activity when faced with a cutthroat environment. Not doing so means that you will project your insecurities, or shadow elements, onto others and be out of touch with your true self. Can we perceive Machiavellian traits and behaviours as a form of the shadow that requires reintegration? Perhaps, but it’s clear that Jung’s conceptualisation of darker elements of the human psyche are useful in considering how we reconcile these actions and tools into ‘self’.

I consider honesty as a value of a security practitioner, but this begins with the self, and the acceptance of one’s own humanity. They will need to be Machiavellian at times. As Jung said, “I’d rather be whole than good”. A failure to address the fundamental aspects of being means that self cannot be known. If you don’t know yourself, you can never truly be safe as you are compromised by the elements of your character you have refused to accept. This means that to know ourselves is to understand that we aren’t just the hero of our own story, we are also the villain.

Rule 2. Accept the inconsistency.

We often hold contradictory views; we have to accept this. This includes the values we hold as aspects of these may present an apparent contradiction. In a cutthroat environment people will try to manipulate and exploit inconsistencies in your arguments, in your perspectives, and your actions. An established principle of influence is consistency, humans seek it, yet are inconsistent in so many fundamental ways.

There is perhaps a misattribution of consistency with capability in corporate settings. Attacks on consistency can easily be misconstrued as attack on your competency or diligence. A security practitioner in such a cutthroat environment will need to know how to behave and respond to such attack. And the best way is to just accept the inconsistency and lean on caprice reframed as virtue.

But there is something for a security practitioner to understand. They are inconsistent, they will contradict themselves, and decisions that are made one day might not be the same as on other days. We are constrained by our biology and our emotions inform our decisions. Claims of rationality may sound nice, but that’s not what we are. We can of course learn to better marshal our emotions to give a better level of consistency but all the time we have hormones in our system, we have emotions in play. A security practitioner needs to accept this as fact.

It's worth noting that as we understand our inconsistent natures and reach acceptance of that, we do have opportunity to observe this in others. In a cutthroat environment this will be prevalent, and perhaps disguised. But it’s there if you know where to look. An opportunity to influence, attack, and defend. By accepting your own inconsistency, you remove the swords from the other, and equip yourself with a shield.

Rule 3. Nuance and Context are important. Know them.

In a Machiavellian world we have a very defined outlook. As much as Machiavelli and Greene describe how these methods serve to attain power, they don’t comment on the ethical implications of these. Depending on your frame of reference you could take these behaviours and actions an inherently neutral but could consider their application to be moral or amoral.

By way of an example, what differentiates influence and manipulation? is it just intent? Social engineers take that view but fail to recognise that the methods themselves can cause harm irrespective of intent. Security practitioners need to be careful that the actions they are taking are not harmful ones justified by a flimsy excuse of intent. This doesn’t mean that retribution is not warranted. Causing harm to others can be a moral act however the agency of others has to be a consideration above that of your intent if you wish to understand the potential consequences.

This is what I mean when I talk about nuance. Actions and behaviours do not exist in isolation, there is a context in which they must exist. That context gives a framing for these actions. What could be aligned to values in one context, may be misaligned in another. Understanding a wider picture than just your own situation would be a requirement. The social underpinnings of humanity mean that everything becomes contextual. We cannot exist in isolation from that which is around us.

The understanding of nuance will help a security practitioner understand the actions of others in a cutthroat environment. It is reasonable that someone may be acting against a security practitioner. This might not be constrained by their own autonomy, rather they could be being manipulated into performing that action. Understanding the nuance of this situation would give the security practitioner flexibility. They might be able to take that adversary by leveraging ill sentiment towards their manipulator and bend them toward their aims.

So, as it happens, there is utility in understanding certain nuances and context as it creates opportunity. This isn’t a “knowledge is power” thing. This about a deeper level of knowing the reality of a situation and not applying your preconceptions onto it.

Rule 4. Don’t protect something that’s not worthy of your protection.

The allure of power can be seductive. The desire to apply the lessons articulated by a Machiavellian world view can be strong, especially when it starts to yield results. But we shouldn’t seek power for power’s sake for we sacrifice our mission. We are not the mercenaries which Machiavelli cautions against using, our purpose runs deeper than that. Money is a currency of sorts but that is not our value, or our values.

In a cutthroat environment a question has to be asked. Is this enterprise worthy of my protection? Are the people within the organisation worthwhile, or are they duplicitous scum that would be better off being discarded into a void of irrelevance? A security practitioner needs to remember that they are in the advantageous position whereby they are not constrained to the environment in which they find themselves. They have the ability to find another role, their fate is not that of the organisation and they are able to walk away.

One of the values I ascribe to a security practitioner is civility. This doesn’t just mean politeness; it outlines an element of trust in those around you and a desire for orderliness. For a practitioner to promote orderliness is a promotion of stability. The alternative would be a decent into chaos and there is little to be desired for a chaotic environment other than the experience of having been there. A Machiavellian, cutthroat workplace would be just that. It would be the embracement of chaos with the veneer of structure. And besides, the creation of too much chaos during your assent might create a nemesis who can best you.

A cutthroat culture, well, that can go too far. The widespread adoption of Machiavellian behaviours inevitably leads to disorder, to destruction. It is not sustainable in a long-term basis as it subverts the basic requirements for humans to have some level of meaningful relationships. I am not saying that these behaviours themselves are necessarily inhuman as they are part of the human condition, however, when taken to the extreme it contends with other human needs. A security practitioner needs to know when to call it a day in these types of environments.

Rule 5. Don’t play by their rules.

If we assume we are in a cutthroat environment, then what benefit is it to be Machiavellian? If you are doing what everyone else is doing, you lack distinction among your peers. Maybe Machiavellianism in a Machiavellian environment is not optimal as you become predictable. What happen if you didn’t crush your enemy when it was known you had the opportunity to do so? Maybe you conduct yourself in such a way that the action would be beneath you, that your detractors are not worthy of your retribution. In a cutthroat environment, that can be a powerful message to others who would become your followers.

A security practitioner will be able to distinguish themselves. Part of the values I would ascribe to an ideal security practitioner are gravitas and magnanimity. Imagine how this might be applied in a Machiavellian environment, it doesn’t seem a wholly reasonable proposition that it would be able to be sincerely applied where the security practitioner is also engaging in duplicitous activity. A cutthroat environment can present an opportunity in that respect. People crave order, not disorder, they crave predictability even if they have to sacrifice their own autonomy.

Conclusion

The human condition is complex. I don’t believe that rules can be universally applicable. As useful as they are as guiding principles or parameters under which we would normally operate they can become an albatross around our necks. There is much madness in life, and much truth in madness. We must account for the unpredictable and make ourselves flexible to changing environments. Greene makes this point very clearly in the 48^th law - assume formlessness.

It can be useful to understand certain environments and views through the lens of a different or complementary set of ideas, like we have somewhat explored Machiavellian constructs in the context of a Jungian conceptualisation of the shadow self. But the point is that these should not be limiting principles. They are models at the end of the day, and y’know, something about maps and terrain. There is always another perspective to consider, or another framing in which to view concepts, and always something to learn by doing this.

Where I must conclude is on this point. Machiavelli and Greene give us a useful set of tools and a conceptualisation in which to understand power dynamics, but this is not the totality of the human experience. This is humanity as viewed from a certain vantage point. Machiavelli and Greene give us a screwdriver set, but if that was the only thing in your toolbox, then what you build is gonna suck.