Monday, June 9, 2008
Machiavellian Behavior (p.438)
At first I was surprised to see Machiavelli mentioned in a communications book (usually he's discussed in political theory or ethics classes), but after reading this section it made more sense. I agree that highly competitive people may be more manipulative. These are the people who are willing to win at all costs, whether it be by bending or breaking the rules. However, I agree with Hunter, Gerbing, and Boster that this can't be determined by one set of questions. I would even go as far to say that we each have a degree of manipulation in each of us, and the degree depends on our personality as well as the unique situation. Sometimes we may be deliberately manipulating a person and other times doing the same thing without realizing it. I was a little confused why building coalitions was among the tactics of high Machs, though. Don't most people try to build coalitions? Coalitions are also part of the democratic process and I don't see them necessarily as negative. The other thought that occurred to me was that the distinction between high Machs and low Machs was presented quite starkly. This may not be applicable to most of us who are probably in the "midrange" Mach mentioned on p. 440. What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Foodie :-)
I agree with you in that I don't think all Machiavellian Behavior should be deemed as being negative. I think with every personality type (as with everything in life) you can find pros and cons. Although there are qualities of High Machs that I don't find appealing, such as their tendency to manipulate people, I must say there are attributes I respect, as well. Our text states that High Machs are not likely to change their beliefs to please someone else or to conform to social pressures. I think this is one commendable trait.
jdmINT
Post a Comment