Management Process and

Organizational Behavior
[SET 1]

Code: MB 0022

Course: MBA

Name: Jayamohan R

Roll No. 520935280

Learning Centre:
EDUWAY ACADEMY PVT. LTD., [Code
1736]
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai
Q.1 “Today managers need to perform various functions”: Elaborate
the statement.
Functions of the Manager

Regardless of the type of the industry, the functions involved in an organization, or the
organizational level at which one functions; every manager has to perform certain
basic managerial functions such as planning, organizing, staffing, leading and
controlling.

 Planning is the process of setting goals, and charting the best way of action for
achieving the goals. This function also includes, considering the various steps to
be taken to encourage the necessary levels of change and innovation.

 Organizing is the process of allocating and arranging work, authority and

resources, to the members of the organization so that they can successfully
execute the plans.

 Staffing consists of recruiting, training and developing people, who form part of
the organized efforts to contribute towards organizational growth.

 Leading involves directing, influencing and motivating employees to perform

essential tasks. This function involves display of leadership qualities, different
leadership styles, different influencing powers, with excellent abilities of
communication and motivation.

 Controlling is the process of devising various checks to ensure that planned

performance is actually achieved. It involves ensuring that actual activities
confirm to the planned activities. Monitoring the financial statements, checking
the cash registers to avoid overdraft etc., form part of this process.

The Essentials of control activities are:

 Setting performance standards

 Determining the yard-stick for measuring performance

2
  Measuring the actual performance

 Comparing actuals with the standard

 Taking corrective actions, if actuals do not match with standards

Q.2 “Skills are the tool for performance”- Explain various

management skills.

Managerial Skills
A manager's job is varied and complex. Managers need certain skills, to help them in
performing various functions associated with their job. These skills can be categorized as
below
Technical skills. These skills include the knowledge of and proficiency in activities
involving methods, processes and procedures. This includes the abilities of a manager in
using the knowledge, tools, and techniques of a specific discipline or field such as
accounting, engineering, manufacturing etc. Examples of such skills also include the
preparation of financial statements, the ability to develop a new code for the computer
program.
These skills are needed for the first line managers, since they are responsible for
delivering the actual performance. First line managers also spend a considerable amount
of their time in training their subordinates.
Human or interpersonal skills of a manager, includes his/her ability to understand other
people and interact effectively with them. Examples of such skills include leading,
motivating and communicating, with subordinates, peers and outsiders. Possession of
these skills is essential for managers, working in all levels. The human skills are also
important in creation of an environment in which people feel secure and free to express
their opinions.
Conceptual skills This refers to the ability to think and conceptualize abstract situations.
These abilities are required for making complex decisions. Such skills are inclusive of the
diagnostic skill, which enables an understanding of the ‘cause-effect' relationship. Further,
it helps to see the situation as a whole, as well as in parts. (i.e., individually). These skills

3
are essential for the top management as they have to understand how the various parts
of the organization relate to one another and associate the organization with the external
environment.
Design skills enable a manager to handle and solve any kind of unforeseen problems
that may crop up in the organization. Top management should posses design skills, in
plenty. It is basically their job to handle/tackle any unforeseen consequences that may
occur in the organization. Such problems could arise due to internal factors or external
factors and/or both.

Q.3 What is negotiation? Explain the process of negotiation.

Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon

courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, or to craft outcomes to
satisfy various interests.
The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. Professional negotiators are often
specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators,
hostage negotiators, or may work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or
brokers.
Negotiation typically manifests itself with a trained negotiator acting on behalf of a
particular organization or position. It can be compared to mediation where a disinterested
third party listens to each sides' arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement
between the parties. It is also related to arbitration which, as with a legal proceeding, both
sides make an argument as to the merits of their "case" and then the arbitrator decides
the outcome for both parties.
There are many different ways to segment negotiation to gain a greater understanding of
the essential parts. One view of negotiation involves three basic elements: process,
behavior and substance. The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of
the negotiations, the parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the
sequence and stages in which all of these play out. Behavior refers to the relationships
among these parties, the communication between them and the styles they adopt. The
substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues (positions and

4
- more helpfully - interests), the options, and the agreement(s) reached at the end.

Another view of negotiation comprises 4 elements: strategy, process and tools, and
tactics. Strategy comprises the top level goals - typically including relationship and the
final outcome. Processes and tools include the steps that will be followed and the roles
taken in both preparing for and negotiating with the other parties. Tactics include more
detailed statements and actions and responses to others' statements and actions. Some
add to this persuasion and influence, asserting that these have become integral to
modern day negotiation success, and so should not be omitted.

Skilled negotiators may use a variety of tactics ranging from negotiation hypnosis, to a
straight forward presentation of demands or setting of preconditions to more deceptive
approaches such as cherry picking. Intimidation and salami tactics may also play a part in
swaying the outcome of negotiations.

Another negotiation tactic is bad guy/good guy. Bad guy/good guy tactic is when one
negotiator acts as a bad guy by using anger and threats. The other negotiator acts as a
good guy by being considerate and understanding. The good guy blames the bad guy for
all the difficulties while trying to get concessions and agreement from the opponent.

The advocate's approach

In the advocacy approach, a skilled negotiator usually serves as advocate for one party to
the negotiation and attempts to obtain the most favorable outcomes possible for that
party. In this process the negotiator attempts to determine the minimum outcome(s) the
other party is (or parties are) willing to accept, then adjusts their demands accordingly. A
"successful" negotiation in the advocacy approach is when the negotiator is able to obtain
all or most of the outcomes their party desires, but without driving the other party to
permanently break off negotiations, unless the best alternative to a negotiated agreement
(BATNA) is acceptable.
Traditional negotiating is sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption of a fixed
"pie", that one person's gain results in another person's loss. This is only true, however, if
5
only a single issue needs to be resolved, such as a price in a simple sales negotiation.
During the 1960s, Gerard I. Nierenberg recognized the role of negotiation in resolving
disputes in personal, business and international relations. He published The Art of
Negotiating, where he states that the philosophies of the negotiators determine the
direction a negotiation takes. His Everybody Wins philosophy assures that all parties
benefit from the negotiation process which also produces more successful outcomes than
the adversarial “winner takes all” approach.
‘Getting to YES’ was published by Roger Fisher and William Ury as part of the Harvard
negotiation project. The book's approach, referred to as Principled Negotiation, is also
sometimes called mutual gains bargaining. The mutual gains approach has been
effectively applied in environmental situations as well as labor relations where the parties
(e.g. management and a labor union) frame the negotiation as "problem solving". If
multiple issues are discussed, differences in the parties' preferences make win-win
negotiation possible. For example, in a labor negotiation, the union might prefer job
security over wage gains. If the employers have opposite preferences, a trade is possible
that is beneficial to both parties.
The new creative approach
Perhaps the most famous negotiation parable involves an argument over an orange. The
most obvious approach was to simply cut it in half, each person getting a fair share. But,
when the negotiators began talking to each other, exchanging information about their
interests, a better solution to the problem became obvious. The person wanting the
orange for juice for breakfast took that part and the person wanting the rind for making
marmalade took that part. Both sides ended up with more. Neither agreement is
particularly creative. The parable of the orange becomes a story about creativity when
both parties decide to cooperate in planting an orange tree or even an orchard. In a
similar way, Boeing buys composite plastic wings for its new 787 Dreamliner designed
and manufactured by Japanese suppliers, and then sells the completed 787s back to
Japanese airlines, all with a nice subsidy from the Japanese government. This is what is
meant by creativity in negotiations. At business schools these days much is being learned
about creative processes. Courses are offered and dissertations proffered with
“innovation” as the key buzz word at academic conferences and in corporate boardrooms.
And, the more heard about innovation and creative processes the greater is the
6
appreciation that the Japanese approach to negotiations, by nature, uses many of the
techniques commonly emphasized in any discussion of creative processes. Indeed, there
appears to be a deeply fundamental explanation why the Japanese have been able to
build such a successful society despite their lack of natural resources and relative
isolation. While Japanese society developed a negotiation style that in many ways
obviates such disadvantages. Indeed, the ten new rules for global negotiations advocated
by Hernandez and Graham nicely coincide with an approach that comes naturally to the
Japanese:

1. Accept only creative outcomes

2. Understand cultures, especially your own.
3. Don’t just adjust to cultural differences, exploit them.
4. Gather intelligence and reconnoiter the terrain.
5. Design the information flow and process of meetings.
6. Invest in personal relationships.
7. Persuade with questions. Seek information and understanding.
8. Make no concessions until the end.
9. Use techniques of creativity
10. Continue creativity after negotiations.

10 Ways to Generate More Ideas

1. Establish common goals of what this "collaboration" would create. A more workable
deal? Some common long term goals? A closer partnership?
2. Establish the rules of engagement. The purpose of the exercise is to resolve
differences in creative ways that work better for both parties. All ideas are possibilities,
and research shows that combining ideas from different cultures can result in better
outcomes than those from a single culture.
3. Trust is key, and difficult to establish in many cultures. Certain techniques might speed
that process a little. Being offsite, for example. Establishing physical proximity that
unconsciously signals intimacy.
4. Add diversity (gender, culture, extroverts, different work specialties, experts, outsiders)
to the group. Indeed, the diversity associated with international teams and alliances is the
7
real goldmine of creativity in negotiations.
5. Use storytelling. This both helps establish who you are and what point of view you are
bringing to this collaboration.
6. Work in small groups. Add physical movement. Tell the participants to relax, play, sing,
have fun, and silence is ok.
7. Work holistically and using visuals. If, for example, there are three sticking points
where neither side is happy, agree to work on those points by spending a short time – 10
minutes – on each point where both sides offer "crazy" suggestions. Use techniques of
improvisation. Neither side should be offended by the crazy ideas. No one should
criticize. Explain that by exploring crazy ideas that better ideas are often generated.
8. Sleep on it. This enables the unconscious to work on the problems, and gives
negotiators time to collect opinions before meeting again the next day. Other kinds of
breaks, coffee, etc. are also helpful.
9. Doing this process over several sessions allows both sides to feel that progress is
being made, and actually generates better and more polished ideas that both sides can
invest in.
10. It is the process of creating something together, rather than the specific proposals,
which creates bonding around a shared task and establishes new ways of working
together. Each side feels honored and all can feel that something is being accomplished.
Other Negotiation Styles
Shell identified five styles/responses to negotiation. Individuals can often have strong
dispositions towards numerous styles; the style used during a negotiation depends on the
context and the interests of the other party, among other factors. In addition, styles can
change over time.
1. Accommodating: Individuals who enjoy solving the other party’s problems and
preserving personal relationships. Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states,
body language, and verbal signals of the other parties. They can, however, feel taken
advantage of in situations when the other party places little emphasis on the relationship.
2. Avoiding: Individuals who do not like to negotiate and don’t do it unless warranted.
When negotiating, avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational aspects of
negotiating; however, they may be perceived as tactful and diplomatic.
3. Collaborating: Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in
8
creative ways. Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns
and interests of the other parties. They can, however, create problems by transforming
simple situations into more complex ones.
4. Competing: Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to
win something. Competitive negotiators have strong instincts for all aspects of negotiating
and are often strategic. Because their style can dominate the bargaining process,
competitive negotiators often neglect the importance of relationships.
5. Compromising: Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and
equal for all parties involved in the negotiation. Compromisers can be useful when there
is limited time to complete the deal; however, compromisers often unnecessarily rush the
negotiation process and make concessions too quickly.

Q.4 Explain Classical Conditioning Theory? (10 Marks)

Classical conditioning shapes many of society’s common, everyday tasks. Why are we
conditioned to applaud when we hear sounds of clapping hands? Why do we shut our
eyes at the sight of mirrors in horror films? Why do we drool when we smell our favorite
food fresh out of the kitchen? Anyone who has taken psychology will tell you that this is
because of the way humans act is known as classical conditioning, founded by Pavlov
half a decade ago while experimenting on a poor, hungry, dog. Whether we know it or
not, many actions we do numerous times a day are a direct result of classical
conditioning. To better understand why we act the way we do in society, classical
conditioning must be defined and described.
Classical conditioning is defined as: a process by which a previously neutral
stimulus acquires the capacity to elicit a response through association with a stimulus that
already elicits a similar or related response. Classical conditioning stems from the
experiments conducted by Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov's experiments assumed
a simplified conditioned response based upon just three primary components: How often
the stimulus is presented, how recently it is presented, and response itself. The method
whereby the conditioned response is strengthened is through both the frequency that the
stimulus is presented and how recent it is presented.

9
Pavlov's famous experiment involved ringing a bell when a dog was shown food. Soon
Pavlov discovered that the dog would begin salivating at the sound of the bell, whether he
was then shown any food or not. Pavlov made the intellectual leap that connected the
salivation of the dog to an unconscious response to a stimulus. That response between
the expectation of food and salivation is known as an unconditioned response, while the
dog salivating because of the bell being rung is known as a conditioned response due to
its being learned. At first the bell is what is known as a neutral stimulus, because by itself
it doesn't result in any response. It is only afterwards that the bell becomes a conditioned
stimulus. Pavlov concluded that some other stimulus that was repetitively associated with
the meat was triggering the salivation. This simple concept describes how many actions
are carried out in society today. What Pavlov figured out, of course, is that the
unconscious response of dog could be manipulated and the same principle would apply
to other animals, including human beings. Many times classical conditioning is not
something that is purposefully done, but rather an incidental outcome. Conditioning may
take a variable amount of time to occur. For example, humans are not born associating
red with stop. As we grow, and ride in cars, we begin to consciously or subconsciously
figure out that when a stoplight is red, you stop. Stop signs are red, stoplights are red,
and brake lights are red. All of these things symbolize stopping.
Within classical conditioning there are many specific components that are needed.
First is an unconditioned stimulus, in this case maybe stopping cars. Next is the
unconditioned response. If you see stopped cars, you will probably stop your car. A
conditioned stimulus would come from noticing that the stopped cars in front of you are
sitting in front of a red light and when that light turns green, they begin to move again.
The conditioned response that results from this would show up when you come up to a
stop light and no other cars are around. If the light is red, you now associate past
experiences with your current situation and stop. Red lights in and of themselves do not
convey stopping, but when associated with automobiles and traffic, the conditioned
response to red lights is to stop.
An example of classical conditioning for me is the ringtones I have assigned to
people in my cell phone. When I even hear just the beginning of certain ringtones I
already know that it has to be a certain person calling or worried if it’s someone else
calling. I didn't do this when I first assigned the ringtones to people. Whenever my phone
10
would ring I would just be like "is that my phone?" but now that I have heard the different
ringtones a lot I automatically get excited when I hear certain ones, or worried when I
hear others.

Q.5 How are culture and society responsible to built value system?

A value system is a set of consistent ethic values (more specifically the personal and
cultural values) and measures used for the purpose of ethical or ideological integrity. A
well defined value system is a moral code.
Personal and communal
One or more people can hold a value system. Likewise, a value system can apply to
either one person or many.
* A personal value system is held by and applied to one individual only.
* A communal or cultural value system is held by and applied to a
community/group/society. Some communal value systems are reflected in the form of
legal codes or law.
Corporate value systems
Fred Wenstop and Arild Myrmel have proposed a structure for corporate value systems
that consists of three value categories. These are considered complementary and
juxtaposed on the same level if illustrated graphically on for instance, an organization’s
web page. The first value category is Core Values, which prescribe the attitude and
character of an organization, and are often found in sections on Code of conduct on its
web page. The philosophical antecedents of these values are Virtue ethics, which is often
attributed to Aristotle. Protected Values are protected through rules, standards and
certifications. They are often concerned with areas such as health, environment and
safety. The third category, Created Values, is the values that stakeholders, including the
shareholders expect in return for their contributions to the firm. These values are subject
to trade-off by decision-makers or bargaining processes. This process is explained further
in Stakeholder theory.
Consistency
As a member of a society, group or community, an individual can hold both a personal
value system and a communal value system at the same time. In this case, the two value
11
systems (one personal and one communal) are externally consistent provided they bear
no contradictions or situational exceptions between them.
A value system in its own right is internally consistent when
* its values do not contradict each other and
* its exceptions are
o abstract enough to be used in all situations and
o consistently applied.
Conversely, a value system by itself is internally inconsistent if:
* its values contradict each other and
* its exceptions are
o highly situational and
o inconsistently applied.
One of the conditions required for consistency in any logical (i.e. value-conserving)
system of statements is their transitivity. Without it, it might eventually happen that A is of
greater value than B, yet B is of greater value than A - which is a case of mutual
contradiction in certain statements that determine values of A and B in the system. Value
system consistency can be a value in and of itself.
Value exceptions
Abstract exceptions serve to reinforce the ranking of values. Their definitions are
generalized enough to be relevant to any and all situations. Situational exceptions, on the
other hand, are ad hoc and pertain only to specific situations. The presence of a type of
exception determines one of two more kinds of value systems:
* An idealized value system is a listing of values that lacks exceptions. It is, therefore,
absolute and can be codified as a strict set of proscriptions on behavior. Those who hold
to their idealized value system and claim no exceptions (other than the default) are called
absolutists.
* A realized value system contains exceptions to resolve contradictions between values
in practical circumstances. This type is what people tend to use in daily life.
The difference between these two types of systems can be seen when people state that
they hold one value system yet in practice deviate from it, thus holding a different value
system. For example, a religion lists an absolute set of values while the practice of that
religion may include exceptions.
12
Implicit exceptions bring about a third type of value system called a formal value system.
Whether idealized or realized, this type contains an implicit exception associated with
each value: "as long as no higher-priority value is violated". For instance, a person might
feel that lying is wrong. Since preserving a life is probably more highly valued than
adhering to the principle that lying is wrong, lying to save someone’s life is acceptable.
Perhaps too simplistic in practice, such a hierarchical structure may warrant explicit
exceptions.
A model system
First appearing in Runaround, part of a science fiction novel by Isaac Asimov, this value
system exemplifies a realized value system that is internally consistent and has abstract
exceptions
Three Laws of Robotics
1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to
come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders
would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict
with the First or Second Law.
Conflict
Although sharing a set of common values, like hockey is better than cricket or ice cream
is better than fruit, two different parties might not rank those values equally. Also, two
parties might disagree as to certain actions are right or wrong, both in theory and in
practice, and find themselves in an ideological or physical conflict. Ethonomics, the
discipline of rigorously examining and comparing value systems, enables us to
understand politics and motivations more fully in order to resolve conflicts.
An example conflict would be a value system based on individualism pitted against a
value system based on collectivism. A rational value system organized to resolve the
conflict between two such value systems might take the form below. Note that added
exceptions can become recursive and often convoluted.
* Individuals may act freely unless their actions harm others or interfere with others'
freedom or with functions of society that individuals need, provided those functions do not
themselves interfere with these proscribed individual rights and were agreed to by a
13
majority of the individuals.
* A society (or more specifically the system of order that enables the workings of a
society) exists for the purpose of benefiting the lives of the individuals who are members
of that society. The functions of a society in providing such benefits would be those
agreed to by the majority of individuals in the society.
* A society may require contributions from its members in order for them to benefit from
the services provided by the society. The failure of individuals to make such required
contributions could be considered a reason to deny those benefits to them, although a
society could elect to consider hardship situations in determining how much should be
contributed.
* A society may restrict behavior of individuals who are members of the society only for
the purpose of performing its designated functions agreed to by the majority of individuals
in the society, only insofar as they violate the aforementioned values. This means that a
society may abrogate the rights of any of its members who fails to uphold the
aforementioned values.
Q.6 Write short notes on

Locus of control

• Locus of control is a term in psychology which refers to a person's belief about

what causes the good or bad results in his or her life, either in general or in a
specific area such as health or academics. Understanding of the concept was
developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an important aspect
of personality studies.
• Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can
control events that affect them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control
believe that events result primarily from their own behavior and actions. Those with
a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance
primarily determine events. Those with a high internal locus of control have better
control of their behavior, tend to exhibit more political behaviors, and are more
likely to attempt to influence other people than those with a high external locus of

14
 control; they are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They
are more active in seeking information and knowledge concerning their situation.
• One's "locus" (Latin for "place" or "location") can either be internal (meaning the
person believes that they control their life) or external (meaning they believe that
their environment, some higher power, or other people control their decisions and
their life).
• Internals tend to attribute outcomes of events to their own control. Externals
attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. For example, college
students with a strong internal locus of control may believe that their grades were
achieved through their own abilities and efforts, whereas those with a strong
external locus of control may believe that their grades are the result of good or bad
luck, or to a professor who designs bad tests or grades capriciously; hence, they
are less likely to expect that their own efforts will result in success and are
therefore less likely to work hard for high grades. This has obvious implications for
differences between internals and externals in terms of their achievement
motivation, suggesting that internal locus is linked with higher levels of N-ach. Due
to their locating control outside themselves, externals tend to feel they have less
control over their fate. People with an external locus of control tend to be more
stressed and prone to clinical depression (Benassi, Sweeney & Dufour, 1988; cited
in Maltby, Day & Macaskill, 2007).
• Internals were believed by Rotter (1966) to exhibit two essential characteristics -
high achievement motivation and low outer-directedness. This was the basis of the
locus of control scale proposed by Rotter in 1966; although this was actually based
on Rotter's belief that locus of control is a unidimensional construct. Since 1970,
Rotter's assumption of unidimensionality has been challenged, with Levenson, for
example, arguing that different dimensions of locus of control, such as belief that
events in one's life are self-determined, are organized by powerful others and are
chance-based, must be separated. Weiner's early work in the 1970s, suggested
that, more-or-less orthogonal to the internality-externality dimension, we should
also consider differences between those who attribute to stable causes, and those
who attribute to unstable causes. This meant that attributions could be to ability (an

15
 internal stable cause), effort (an internal unstable cause), task difficulty (an
external stable cause) or luck (an external, unstable cause). Such at least were
how the early Weiner saw these four causes. Indeed, in more recent publications
(e.g. Weiner, 1980) Weiner uses different terms for these four causes - such as
"objective task characteristics" in place of task difficulty and "chance" in place of
luck. It has also been notable how psychologists since Weiner have distinguished
between stable effort and unstable effort - knowing that, in some circumstances,
effort could be seen as a stable cause, especially given the presence of certain
words such as "industrious" in the English language.
• Locus of control has been a concept which has certainly generated much research
in psychology, in a variety of areas. Usefulness of the construct can be seen in its
applicability to fields such as educational psychology, health psychology or clinical
psychology. There will probably continue to be debate about whether specific or
more global measures of locus of control will prove to be more useful. Careful
distinctions should also be made between locus of control (a concept linked with
expectancies about the future) and attributional style (a concept linked with
explanations for past outcomes), or between locus of control and concepts such as
self-efficacy. The importance of locus of control as a topic in psychology is likely to
remain quite central for many years.

Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism is, according to the OED, "the employment of cunning and duplicity in
statecraft or in general conduct", deriving from the Italian Renaissance diplomat and
writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote Il Principe (The Prince) and other works.
Machiavelli, according to the popular view, held that people were by nature untrustworthy,
malevolent and self-serving, and thus those in power could only maintain their position
through exploitative and deceitful actions.

Machiavellianism was seen as a foreign virus infecting English politics, originating in Italy,
and having already infected France. It was in this context that the St. Bartholomew's Day
massacre of 1572 in Paris came to be seen as a product of Machiavellianism, Gentillet

16
held, quite wrongly according to Sydney Anglo, that Machiavelli's "books were held most
dear and precious by our Italian and Italionized courtiers" in France (in the words of his
first English translation). In fact there is little trace of Machiavelli in French writings before
the massacre, and not very much after, until Gentillet's own book, but this concept was
seized upon by many contemporaries, and played a crucial part in setting the long-lasting
popular concept of Machiavellianism

The English playwright Christopher Marlowe was an enthusiastic proponent of this view.
The Anti-Machiavel is an 18th century essay by Frederick the Great, King of Prussia and
patron of Voltaire, rebutting The Prince, and Machiavellianism. It was first published in
September 1740; a few months after Frederick became king, and is one of many such
works.

In psychology

Machiavellianism is also a term that some social and personality psychologists use to
describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain. In the
1960s, Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis developed a test for measuring a person's
level of Machiavellianism. This eventually became the MACH-IV test, a twenty-statement
personality survey that is now the standard self-assessment tool of Machiavellianism.
People scoring above 60 out of 100 on the MACH-IV are considered high Machs; that is,
they endorsed statements such as, "Never tell anyone the real reason you did something
unless it is useful to do so,". People scoring below 60 out of 100 on the MACH-IV are
considered low Machs; they tend to believe, "There is no excuse for lying to someone
else". Christie, Geis, and Geis's graduate assistant David Berger went on to perform a
series of studies that provided experimental verification for the notion of Machiavellianism.

Machiavellianism is one of the three personality traits referred to as the dark triad, along
with narcissism and psychopathy. Some psychologists consider Machiavellianism to be
essentially a subclinical form of psychopathy, although recent research suggests that
while Machiavellianism and psychopathy overlap, they are distinct personality constructs.

17