Business process reengineering leadership: princes of Machiavelli

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish a supported and validated reference point for Machiavellianism as an antecedent to the contemporary management philosophy of business process reengineering (BPR). Design/methodology/approach This paper analyzes BPR and Machiavellianism by using the seminal work of Hammer and Champy (1993) on BPR and the original writings of Machiavelli coupled with the personal correspondence of Machiavelli with his contemporaries. Findings The findings of this research indicate that the constructs of Machiavellian thought transcend the five centuries since the publication of The Prince, and can be found in the contemporary managerial framework of BPR. This comparison of historical leadership frameworks demonstrates how recent management decisions in companies show the rise of Machiavellian as BPR. In an analysis of these theories, the authors show similarities in five significant tenets of business leadership and argue how these repackaged ideas and prescriptions undermine employee-centric advances. Research limitations/implications This comparison reviews the managerial frameworks presented in Machiavelli’s The Prince and Hammer and Champy’s book Reengineering the Corporation through the theoretical tenets of leadership. Practical implications Employment of Machiavellianism and BPR results in an expendable utilization of followers and employees. Implications abound for modern managers, as the authors emphasize the elements and outcomes which lead to deleterious organizational outcomes. Social implications In an analysis of these theories, the authors argue how these strategies undermine employee-centric advances within human relations by embracing these repackaged ideas and concepts. Originality/value This research leverages historical perspective to provide a qualitative understanding of the follies of recycled versions of Machiavelli’s ideas. The overall study and inquiry of BPR from a leadership perspective is not robust and leaves antecedents and influences critically unevaluated.