Positional Power vs. Personal Power: Can Machiavelli and Modern Leadership Coexist?

If you’d have to pick one… luckily, we don’t.

“It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”

This famous line from Machiavelli’s The Prince has echoed through centuries, influencing leaders across political, military, and business domains. The concept of positional power — where authority stems from a title, rank, or strategic advantage — has long been considered necessary for maintaining control and order.

Fast forward to modern leadership philosophy, and we encounter a very different perspective. Thought leaders like Simon Sinek emphasize personal power, which is built on trust, empathy, and the ability to inspire loyalty. In his book “Leaders Eat Last,” Sinek argues that true influence comes from serving others and leading with care.

But is it possible to blend these two approaches — Machiavelli’s strategic, sometimes ruthless leadership and Sinek’s empathetic, trust-based model? Can positional power and personal power coexist in a world where leadership demands both adaptability and integrity?

Let’s explore this complex question through the lens of leadership principles, historical context, and modern-day applications.

Great strategic position comes with a great view of “big picture”, but can you see the details?

Machiavelli’s View: The Power of Strategy and Control

In The Prince, Machiavelli advocates for a pragmatic, at times ruthless, approach to leadership. He emphasizes the need for rulers to maintain positional power by exercising control, manipulation, and even fear. For Machiavelli, the end justifies the means, especially when the survival of the state (or organization) is at stake.

Positional power, as Machiavelli sees it, comes from authority — whether through military strength, political maneuvering, or strategic alliances. It’s about commanding respect (or fear) to ensure stability and control. Maintaining order is paramount, and sometimes that requires difficult, morally ambiguous decisions.

This idea is still relevant today in situations where decisive action is required — during crises, restructuring, or when navigating high-stakes decisions.

Simon Sinek’s Perspective: Building Influence through Empathy and Trust

On the other hand, modern leadership figures like Simon Sinek challenge the Machiavellian approach. For Sinek, personal power comes from a leader’s ability to build trust, empathy, and collaboration. In “Leaders Eat Last,” Sinek argues that great leaders serve their teams, foster loyalty, and create environments of safety and belonging.

Instead of leading through fear or manipulation, leaders gain long-term success by creating genuine relationships with their teams. Employees follow out of admiration and belief in the leader’s vision, not because they’re forced to.

This trust-based leadership model has been proven to drive employee engagement, foster innovation, and build sustainable organizations.

Can They Coexist? The Duality of Leadership Power

The question I explored in a recent LinkedIn post was:

Can these two approaches — Machiavellian positional power and Sinek’s personal power — coexist?

Here’s the consensus:

• Positional power is often necessary in high-stakes environments or moments of crisis. When rapid decision-making is required, a leader may need to exert authority to maintain control.
• However, once stability is achieved, a shift toward personal power becomes essential for building a lasting, thriving organization. The leader transitions from maintaining order to fostering trust and collaboration.

A thoughtful comment on LinkedIn drew an analogy between Lord Baelish and Ned Stark from Game of Thrones. Baelish represents the strategic foresight and adaptability akin to Machiavelli, while Stark embodies moral integrity and loyalty, closer to Sinek’s principles. A modern leader might blend these two approaches — using Baelish’s ability to think ahead and Stark’s grounding in ethical leadership to navigate complex corporate environments.

This analogy underscores the idea that both styles can coexist, but only when they are used in balance. A leader can plan strategically like Baelish, but must also maintain trust and moral clarity like Stark. The challenge, of course, is avoiding the “betrayal” that often comes when strategy overrides integrity.

Practical Applications in Modern Leadership

When to Use Positional Power:

• Crisis Management: In moments of uncertainty or high pressure, leaders may need to exercise decisive control to prevent chaos.
• Strategic Decision-Making: When high-stakes decisions need to be made quickly, positional power ensures that the leader’s vision is implemented without resistance.
• Navigating Complex Structures: In large organizations or political settings, leveraging positional authority can help a leader navigate internal politics and maintain stability.

When to Use Personal Power:

• Building Long-Term Trust: Once the crisis has passed, personal power becomes more critical in ensuring that the team stays engaged, motivated, and innovative.
• Fostering Collaboration: Leaders who rely on empathy and trust create a culture of openness where collaboration and creative problem-solving thrive.
• Sustaining Organizational Growth: In times of stability, leaders who prioritize service to their teams and focus on building relationships tend to achieve greater long-term success.

Key Takeaways: Balancing Strategy and Empathy

Leaders who rely solely on positional power may achieve short-term control but will struggle to maintain long-term loyalty and engagement. On the other hand, leaders who solely focus on personal power might lack the decisiveness required during crises.

The best leaders understand when to shift between these two types of power:

• Use Machiavelli’s positional power sparingly, only when necessary to maintain stability or make strategic decisions.
• Rely on Sinek’s personal power to build lasting relationships, foster trust, and create a loyal and engaged team.

Leadership is not about choosing one philosophy over the other — it’s about knowing when to be strategic and when to be empathetic.

Conclusion: Power, Trust, and the Modern Leader

In today’s complex world, leadership requires both strategic foresight and empathy. The key to successful leadership is not choosing between positional power and personal power, but understanding when and how to deploy each effectively.

As leaders, we must balance control and authority with trust and collaboration. After all, the most effective leaders are those who can adapt their style to meet the needs of the moment, blending Machiavelli’s pragmatism with Sinek’s empathy.

What do you think? Have you seen examples where positional and personal power were successfully balanced? Share your thoughts below!