Machiavelli’s work The Prince, is a perfect way of illustrating the variance in leadership and power in relation to a particular populous in a macro level. Machiavelli starts by explaining the relationship between the hierarchy and the people of certain principalities, and the given attitude held by those people towards the leadership which determines the kinds of power it can then possess. Machiavelli goes on to explain that more often than not, the longer that a particular leader or leaders have been in power and have been exposed to the public eye, the easier it would be for that leadership to continue it’s given political platform or how easily the leadership could attain even more power. This demonstrates the potential of engrained learned behavior or acceptance within a group of followers over a certain period of time. People always fear the unknown, and considering political or social alternatives when you’ve known nothing but one particular system becomes increasingly more difficult with the passage of time. Machiavelli is careful to make a very clear line of distinction between these older principalities who’ve established these older learned behaviors versus those who have just begun to form, as well as the socioeconomic and political variations within them. One of the most clever perspectives offered by Machiavelli is this notion of controlling recently conquered states and people; going on to explain the importance of devastation, occupation, and the establishment of taxes and an oligarchy to further said control. These previously stated variables seem to provide the said conquered state with the illusion that the integrity of that nation or state has not been compromised, but rather like a business this state has simply come under “new management”. Rather than trying to clear house and start from scratch, Machiavelli suggests an idea very similar to that of a quiet merger, within reason. This is arguably a very pragmatic approach, but it still seems to carry this innate sinister nature within. Admittedly, the book does on to explain the necessary reason for such a balanced opaque approach to new leadership strategy, using the allegory of how an individual might rise to become a prince and the polarized nature of different approaches taken by those who stray down said path; stating that those who simply bullied there way to the top may achieve power but no glory, and vice Vera’s for the opposite approach. Machiavelli goes on to explain the difference in social class of particular citizens, and the difference in motivations between those groups of people and how that may play in to social development. This demonstrates further that there are and should be different approaches to leadership dependent upon the situation and that parties involved. All of this of course dictates the overall political strategy of a particular state or organization; it is a complex equation of time, circumstances, traditions, political preferences, and social influences. There is no one true way, or even a preferred multiple choice; it is a constant flowing conglomeration of factors and variables which much be maticuosly managed and observed in order to understand what exactly should be done next to preserve the longevity of a particular principality.