Empathy vs. Fear. The timeless psychology of power

The Machiavellian Blueprint

Niccolò Machiavelli famously wrote in his centuries-replicated work, The Prince: “It is far safer to be feared than loved.” At first glance, the allure of this statement lies in its practicality. After all, instilling fear in others seems like a straightforward path to achieving one’s goals. It’s undeniably easier to make someone afraid of you than to earn their genuine affection. And let’s be honest—there’s a certain intoxicating satisfaction that comes with dominance, with the power to command respect (or at least compliance) through intimidation. For many, this allure is enough to justify any means necessary to achieve it.

But here’s the critical question: Does this psychology of power actually work in the long run? 

The answer, it turns out, is a resounding no.

The Dark Laws of Power

Machiavelli’s beliefs continue to captivate us, undeterred by the somewhat archaic language of The Prince. His Machiavellian approach to life seems almost tailor-made for the modern-day jungle of corporate boardrooms and political arenas. It’s no wonder that Robert Greene’s 1998 book, The 48 Laws of Power, sold millions of copies within a decade of its release. This modern-day manual on wielding power is a clear and compelling update to the ideas of the Renaissance lawyer and philosopher from Florence.

The Unflinching Laws of Power: A Ruthless Playbook for Dominance

• Law 3:Conceal your intentions
• Law 7: Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit
• Law 10: Infection: avoid the unhappy and unlucky
• Law 11: Learn to keep people dependent on you
• Law 12: Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim
• Law 14: Pose as a friend, work as a spy
• Law 15: Crush your enemy totally
• Law 17: Keep others in suspended terror: cultivate an air of unpredictability
• Law 18: Do not build fortresses to protect yourself—isolation is dangerous
• Law 31: Control the options: get others to play with the cards you deal
• Law 34: Be royal in your own fashion: act like a king to be treated like one

It’s undeniably captivating—precisely because it places all the tools needed to wield power directly into the hands of the executor. This set of laws not only equips you with the means to control but also allows you to maintain the initiative at all times, leaving others blissfully unaware, clinging to the naive belief that they still have a say in the game.

The Psychology Behind the Choice

At first glance, the power strategies outlined by Robert Greene crackle with intrigue and raw ambition. They promise a tantalizing path to dominance: outmaneuver rivals, seize control, and hold onto power at any cost. But here’s the million-dollar question—do these tactics actually work in the long run? And perhaps more importantly, do they serve the greater good of the organizations and communities they impact, whether a bustling startup, a local bar, or an entire nation?

Dr. Dacher Keltner, a distinguished American social psychologist, challenges Greene’s cutthroat philosophy with a radically different perspective. According to Keltner, while Greene’s laws may be seductive, they are fundamentally flawed. His research uncovers a profound truth: real, lasting power isn’t about ruthless manipulation. It’s about responsibility, empathy, and an acute understanding of human nature.

Keltner argues that the most powerful leaders aren’t those who deceive, intimidate, or exploit but those who master the art of connection. “It’s not the manipulative, strategic Machiavellian who rises in power,” he explains. “Instead, social science reveals that one’s ability to get or maintain power, even in small group situations, depends on one’s ability to understand and advance the goals of other group members.”

We recommend: The Daily Reality of Illness: The Human Psyche in the Face of a Severe Trial

True power isn’t about forcing submission; it’s about fostering trust. Leaders who practice empathy and social intelligence cultivate environments where collaboration thrives. They become indispensable—not because they instill fear, but because they inspire loyalty. The ability to defuse conflicts, negotiate effectively, and align with the needs of others ensures that their leadership stands the test of time.

Contrast this with those who embrace Greene’s laws—leaders who deceive, intimidate, and manipulate to climb the ladder. Initially, they may bask in their victories, buoyed by a select inner circle that benefits from their tactics. But history and research tell a cautionary tale: these figures often meet an unceremonious downfall. Why? Because fear-based leadership breeds resentment. The moment their followers sense a shift in power, they turn against the very person they once obeyed.

This cycle plays out time and again—authoritarian rulers overthrown, tyrannical CEOs ousted, and ruthless politicians abandoned by their allies. The message is clear: deception and intimidation might provide a shortcut to power, but they rarely guarantee a lasting reign.

The Paradox of Power

The paradox of power is as unsettling as it is undeniable: once attained, it has a way of distorting your perception of both yourself and those you lead. As the British historian Lord Acton famously warned, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Every few years, psychologists unveil fresh insights into why leaders so often succumb to the corrupting influence of power. One of the most glaring changes a new leader might notice in themselves is a dangerous shift in perspective: an inflated sense of self-worth paired with a diminishing view of their subordinates. This phenomenon has been partly explained by the subservience of those under their command. People dependent on their leaders often obey orders without question, sometimes even exaggerating their leader’s supposed virtues in a bid to stay in favor. This creates a toxic feedback loop: the leader’s ego swells as their followers feed it, while their respect for those followers dwindles.

The more power a leader wields, the easier it becomes to believe they are inherently superior—smarter, more capable, and more deserving than those they lead. This illusion is reinforced by the sycophants who surround them, eager to curry favor. But this isn’t just arrogance; it’s a dangerous delusion that blinds leaders to their flaws and the true value of their team.

The Choice We All Face

One of the most glaring mechanisms of power is the tendency to strip individuals of their uniqueness, reducing them to interchangeable cogs in a machine. Leaders often lose interest in the individual traits of their subordinates, opting instead for a one-size-fits-all, stereotypical approach. In such environments, creativity, initiative, and innovation from those below are not just ignored—they’re actively discouraged. The only thing that matters is strict compliance with orders.

This is yet another paradox of power: subordinates are reduced to mere tools, stripped of individuality and agency. Leaders expect little from them beyond obedience, believing this approach strengthens control over the group. But while it may tighten the reins, it does little to drive the group toward its goals. According to American psychologist Susan Fiske, those in power can afford to stereotype others because they aren’t dependent on them—at least not to the same degree as those below are dependent on their leaders. This mindset is further fueled by the cognitive overload that comes with leadership. Faced with an overwhelming flood of information, leaders often resort to mental shortcuts, thinking of others in simplistic, dehumanizing terms.

Treating everyone the same isn’t just a matter of convenience—it’s a way to reinforce dominance. By viewing subordinates as a faceless “gray mass,” leaders amplify their sense of superiority. This dynamic isn’t limited to direct subordinates; it extends to anyone the leader perceives as beneath them.

A striking example of this mentality can be seen in the baffling questions posed by the wealthy: “Why do the poor need more money? They don’t have the same expenses as we do.” This isn’t just ignorance—it’s a profound failure to empathize, and a symptom of the dehumanizing effects of power.

We recommend: How to Design Cities? Urban Planning Beyond Human Inhabitants

The Broken Brain of Power

Keltner’s analogy of power as a form of brain damage is more than just a metaphor—it’s a warning. When individuals rise to positions of authority, they risk losing the very qualities that make them human: empathy, self-awareness, and moral judgment. The Stanford Prison Experiment serves as a stark reminder of how easily power can transform ordinary people into tyrants.

So, the next time you find yourself in a position of power—or witness someone else in one—ask yourself: Is this person still in control of their humanity, or has power already begun to erode their mind? The answer might be more outrageous than you think.

Violence became so out of control that the experiment had to be discontinued. However, it took Dr. Zimbardo six days to reach that determination. Previously, as he subsequently stated, he felt more like a prison warden than an objective spectator.

Who Needs Dr. House When You’ve Got Leaders Like These?

At first, those in power justify their actions to themselves, believing that sometimes you have to bend the rules for the greater good. But these “exceptions” quickly become the norm. Leaders, seduced by the teachings of Machiavelli or Greene, defend their behavior as a necessary evil of wielding power—a system they didn’t create but are all too willing to exploit. Even worse, many of their followers buy into this logic, claiming that society needs strong, decisive leaders, no matter the cost.

We’re fed a steady diet of power fantasies through mass culture. Take cooking shows, for example. To add drama and emphasize dominance, the “boss” often humiliates and berates their team, putting everyone in their place with unnecessary arrogance. And the audience loves it. Why? Because everyone identifies with the boss, not the underling. We’re conditioned to admire the tyrant, not the victim.

Then there’s the cult of Dr. House. Who wouldn’t want to be the brilliant, rule-breaking diagnostician who saves lives while insulting everyone in sight? But here’s the catch: while few can match his genius, many are eager to adopt his arrogance and outright rudeness. After all, it’s an easy way to feel dominant. But ask yourself this: Would you want to be his patient?

Read the text in Polish: Empatia kontra strach. Psychologia władzy