Sometimes, you read something that makes you want to take a long shower. The 48 Laws of Power, written by Robert Greene, and produced and “designed by” Joost Elffers (and what’s it say when a book’s producer/designer gets equal billing?) takes Machiavelli’s suggestions and the ethical dilemma he posed and eliminates the ethical dilemma.

Machiavelli expressed his dilemma in The Prince: “Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.”

Greene and Elffers say, “No one wants less power; everyone wants more.” “You will be able to make people bend to your will without their realizing what you have done. And if they do not realize what you have done, they will neither resent nor resist you.” “In fact, the better you are at dealing with power, the better friend, lover, husband, wife, and person you become.”

They figure everyone wants to increase their power, and always at someone else’s expense. This may be true in their world. In mine, most people want to optimize their power, not maximize it.

Powerlessness is a sorry state of affairs most of us try to avoid — true enough. Maximize your power, though, and you isolate and dehumanize yourself, substituting dry affairs for loving relationships, suspicion and manipulation for trusting friendships, and cold planning for the uninhibited enjoyment of life. Love and friendship require us to give others power over ourselves and vice versa.

On the other hand …

In your career you aren’t surrounded by friends. So while I don’t generally recommend “Keep[ing] others in suspended terror,” (Law 17), recognizing that your rivals do can prevent their achieving power over you. Nor should you “Use selective honesty … to disarm your victim,” (Law 12) for any number of reasons, not the least of which is an insufficient supply of naivete. If you’re naive enough to fall for it, though, your less scrupulous colleagues will manipulate you without much effort.

Some laws are just bad advice. Law 11, which advises you to “Learn to keep people dependent on you,” can change you from a peer to a subordinate in a hurry if you aren’t careful, and can prevent an employer from promoting you out of fear that what only you can do will no longer get done. If you’re irreplaceable, you’re unpromotable.

Other than its ethical repulsiveness, the biggest problem with this book is that some of its suggestions only work when everyone plays. “Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit,” only works if people don’t confide in each other. Otherwise you can kiss Law #5, “So much depends on reputation — guard it with your life,” goodbye.

But … and it’s a big but … you can’t always avoid Machiavelli’s ethical dilemma, and even the most distasteful of these 48 “Laws” may be required to keep a bigger schmuck than you from taking over.

Sadly, you should own this book. Put it on your home (not office!) bookshelf, right next to Covey’s The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and see if one of them bursts into flames.

“As commander in chief, I’m responsible,” David Frye once said, doing his impression of Richard Nixon during the height of the Watergate scandal. “But I’m not to blame. Let me explain the difference: People who are to blame go to jail. People who are responsible do not.”

The Nixon administration sliced the bologna pretty thinly back then. No thinner, though, than many of us do today when we walk the fine lines that separate responsibility, accountability, and blame.

Let me explain the difference: When you hold employees accountable, you help them succeed. When you assign (or allocate) blame, you ensure everyone’s failure.

Start with the terms “responsible” and “accountable.” Never mind the dictionary; there are two similar but distinct ideas to keep track of when you delegate; we can use these two words to make the difference perfectly clear.

First, let’s talk about responsibility. If you’ve been assigned a responsibility you’re supposed to figure out what has to get done and go do it. If you’re a responsible soul, you do so. Key to responsibility is matching it with authority: Giving someone responsibility for the summer picnic, for example, but not letting them choose what brand of hot dog you buy just isn’t kosher.

Then there’s accountability, which we’ll attach to a related but different idea. If you’re accountable, your boss is aware of how you are doing. If a problem arises, your boss is aware of that, too, and wants to know how it arose and what you’re going to do about it. People are (or are not) responsible; you hold them accountable. The distinction may seem like a fine line, but it’s really a broad chasm.

People are responsible for results, not problems. That means they’re responsible for solving problems within their area of authority, not for the problems themselves. It also means you hold them accountable for results, not for problems that arise.

The exercise of determining who caused a problem doesn’t assign responsibility, nor does it hold people accountable. It simply assigns blame, determining who gets punished. This “heads will roll!” mentality is always a bad idea, because if heads may roll, heads will be kept down, which means problems will go unsolved.

Asking who caused a problem is, in fact, the wrong question because most problems are caused not by a “who” but by insufficient process design, resource constraints, earthquakes, tornadoes … and yes, occasionally by incompetence, laziness, poor judgment, or just a bad guess. Don’t ask who caused a problem, ask what caused it. If you find the problem arose from the actions of an employee or team, punishment is appropriate only on rare occasions. What matters is figuring out how to avoid repetition.

Because of how a problem arose you may decide an employee is unsuited to a job, or even unsuited to employment with your company. If that’s the right answer, make the right decision – not to punish the employee, but to help both the employee and your company succeed, neither of which will happen unless the employee changes roles or employers.

Punishment is only appropriate in the case of malfeasance.

So … If you’re responsible, you make sure things get done. If you’re accountable, your boss is in the loop. If you’re to blame, your boss asked who was at fault, decided it was you, and made chopped liver out of you for it.

Another bit o’ semantics: Many people call the combination of responsibility and authority “ownership.” The upside: People who own things understand that they’re both responsible for them and have authority over them. The downside: They guard them as part of their territory. Personally, I prefer the term “stewardship,” which means you’re both responsible and have authority, but over somebody else’s property.

Responsibility, authority, ownership, stewardship, accountability, blame … what matters isn’t how thinly you slice these words. You may define them beautifully, or do the wurst job ever.

What matters is, as the Japanese would say, whether you fix the problem or just affix blame.