simitra, this is very "Machiavelli", as in: his time, and geared, specifically, his target audience (i.e. dynastic, political rulers - this was not when people used to elect those on a regular basis), indeed.
In your present-day workplaces, it really is a tad more complex than this: corporate executives are nothing like absolutist rulers. Our "citizens" (read: employees) have the option to walk out on us if we try to rule by fear tactics (and: I bloody hope they would - personally, I'm not that interested in having people in my workforce who haven't grasped this. I need for my employees to be reasonably intelligent in order for them to do their job well ...).
We don't have the same goals, either. Not entirely, anyway: assume that it's, literally, any manager's primary personal goal to stay in power and gain more of it (it typically isn't, and, yes, some psychopaths do exist, but let's assume this for the sake of the argument): family businesses like OP's perhaps excluded to some - but certainly not the entire - extent: we don't derive our legitimacy by having sprung out of the same womb which has, presumably, been impregnated by sperm from the right source. We are, fundamentally, more easily replacable than some 16th century duke. In fact, being replacable is part of what we get paid for to some degree.
The legal situation is also nowhere near the same: if your way of applying fear to achieve compliance in a workplace is not downright illegal, it may, at least, be unethical and poses a risk to the reputation of your firm. Every employee you have has the option to trash your leadership style on any internet forum out there - without you even being able to trace it back to them. You don't get to bully, intimidate and and discipline at will - not unless you have some serious moral compass issues and one hell of a lawyer to save your sorry arse once it inevitably all blows in your face! Epstein was bigger than almost all of us, and - though it lasted a long time - Epstein didn't get away with it. The "Lapdance Partner" guy? Sacked, publicly named and shamed, unemployable! Senior leadership at a certain global bank having private detectives go after another executive? It came to light, and it was a major scandal and not a good career move for any of the people involved.
Modern day leaders lead by - more or less - consent. There is always an element of hierarchy involved. My boss does get to discipline and possibly fire me (but I get to fire my boss, too, as in: I get to walk out on him). I do get to discipline and fire my employees - but they get to discipline me, too, by making my business fail. Sometimes, we have to be ruthless. At other times we have to be the bigger person and forgive despite not remotely wanting to. All part and parcel of the job! Our employees may not always like us to the extent that they'd invite us to their wedding. They don't have to. But we're not absolutist rulers, and if we lose their support, we're essentially done for because we won't reach our goals. Modern managers don't manage by the grace of God, as Machiavelli's princes did. We have bosses, too. And when we're at the very top, we are still accountable to markets.
And, I don't even need to go there. These are all reasons why, objectively speaking, it's a horrible idea to try and manage as per Machiavelli in 2021. I've one better argument:
Assume you had 100% certainty that you could get away with it, that your share price would sky-rocket, that your bonus would, too, and that Fortune magazine would give you a cover: would you want it? Would you really? Could you look at yourself in the mirror, knowing that the world is your oyster - at the "small" price that a ton of people are cowering in fear because of you? I know I couldn't! (Nor would I want to work for someone who regards Machiavelli as a management guide.)
And that's why we don't Machiavelli!