ArticlePDF Available

Machiavellianism and leadership

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Studied the relevance of Machiavellianism as a personality style for leadership in the context of experimental task groups; Ss were 84 male undergraduates. The experimental design preselected (using Machiavellian scales) 14 high Machiavellians (Machs) and 14 low Machs and assigned them as leaders of task groups who constructed toy cube bridges under either a favorable or an unfavorable situation. In the favorable situation, the leader was presented to the group as technically qualified, and his authority was emphasized (high leader power). Task performance was evaluated according to a single criterion (structured task). In the unfavorable situation, the leader's qualities or special status were not emphasized (low power), and task performance was evaluated according to multiple criteria (unstructured task). No performance differences were found between high and low Mach led groups. Significant differences were observed in group interactions. High Mach leaders gave more orders and were less involved in reducing tension. They were also less directive and requested more assistance when the situation was unfavorable, whereas the low Machs' behavior across situations remained unchanged. (8 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal
of
Applied Psychology
1980, Vol.
65, No. 1,
81-86
Machiavellianism
and
Leadership
Amos Drory
Department
of
Industrial Engineering
and
Management
Ben-Gurion
University
of the
Negev
Beersheba, Israel
Uri M.
Gluskinos
G. R.
Organization Development
and
Personnel Management Institute
Tel-Aviv,
Israel
The
relevance
of
Machiavellianism
as a
personality style
for
leadership
was
studied
in the
context
of
experimental task groups.
The
subjects were
84
male
undergraduate
students.
The
experimental design assigned
14
high
Machiavel-
lians
(Machs)
and 14 low
Machs
as
leaders
of
task groups
who
constructed
toy
cube bridges under either
a
favorable
or an
unfavorable situation.
In the
favorable
situation,
the
leader
was
presented
to the
group
as
technically quali-
fied,
and
his
authority
was
emphasized
(high
leader
power).
Task performance
was
evaluated according
to a
single criterion (structured task).
In the
unfavor-
able situation,
the
leader's qualities
or
special status were
not
emphasized
(low
power),
and
task performance
was
evaluated according
to
multiple criteria
(unstructured
task).
No
performance
differences
were
found
between high
Mach
and low
Mach
led
groups. However,
significant
differences were
ob-
served
with
regard
to
group interactions. High Mach leaders gave more orders
and
were less involved
in
reducing tension. They were also less directive
and
requested more assistance when
the
situation
was
unfavorable, whereas
the
low
Machs'
behavior
across
situations remained unchanged.
This study focused
on the
relevance
of
Machiavellianism
as a
personality style
for
leadership behavior.
The
concept
of
Machi-
avellianism,
as
introduced
by
Christie
and
Geis (1970), pertains
to
cognitive agreement
with
the
basic ideas
of
Nicollo Machiavelli,
for
example, mistrust
in
human nature, lack
of
conventional morality, opportunism,
and
lack
of
affect
in
interpersonal relationships.
People
who
scored highly
on
standard meas-
ures
of
Machiavellianism (high Machs) were
found
to
have
a
strong tendency
to
manipu-
late
other
people
(Geis
&
Christie,
Note
1).
In
an
experimental bargaining coalition
game, high Machs manifested better sense
of
timing
and
adjusted
their
acts
to
current
circumstances. They also
appeared
to
initiate
and
control
the
structure
of
group
interac-
tion. High Machs manifested higher
effec-
tiveness under ambiguous, rather than
clear,
situations. They also were
found
to be de-
tached
from
ego-involving elements
in
bar-
Requests
for
reprints
should
be
sent
to
Amos
Drory,
Department
of
Industrial Engineering
and
Management,
Ben-Gurion University
of the
Negev,
Beersheba,
Israel.
gaining
context (Geis,
Weinheimer,
&
Berger, Note
2) and
were more resistant
to
social
pressure
than
low
Machs (Bogart,
1968;
Epstein,
1969;
Feiler,
Note
3).
Geis, Krupat,
and
Berger (Note
4)
found
that
in an
experimental situation involving
group
discussions,
high
Machs were rated
significantly
higher than
low
Machs
on
task
performance,
amount
of
leadership
displayed,
and
contribution
to
group progress,
but
lower
on
sociometric position.
In
another
study
by
Geis (1968), high Machs were
chosert-significantly
more
often
for a
leader-
ship position than
the low
Machs,
and the
chosen
high Mach leaders
led
their groups
to a
higher level
of
group performance.
However,
in a
group situation requiring
the
members
to
establish
an
efficient
communi-
cation network
to
solve their problem,
the
high
Mach members failed
to
become
key
persons
in the
communication network
and
made
significantly
fewer organizational sug-
gestions (Oksenberg, 1968).
Christie (Christie
&
Geis,
1970) sug-
gested
that
Machiavellian superiority
in in-
terpersonal bargaining
and
structure
initia-
Copyright
1980
by
the
American
Psychologies!
Association,
Inc.
0021-9010/80/650I-0081$00.75
82
AMOS
DRORY
AND
URI
M.
GLUSKINOS
tion
results
from
basic amoral attitudes
and
mistrust
in
human nature. This superiority
manifests
itself more clearly
in
unstructured
situations,
in
which
the
task
is
complicated
and
avoidance
of
effective involvement
is
important.
In
conclusion, high Machs
appear
to be
successful
manipulators, resisting attitude
change,
and
have
an
effective task oriented
approach. These characteristics
as
well
as
their
tendency
to
gain control
in
group situa-
tions suggest
a
potential
to
perform
effec-
tively
as
leaders
in
task oriented groups.
Those studies pertaining
to
Machs'
be-
havior
as
leaders dealt
with
spontaneous
and
informal leadership
as it
emerged
in the
course
of the
group's development. Even
these data concerned with
the
Machs
as in-
formal
leaders
are
conflicting.
No
attempt
has yet
been made
to
study behavioral dif-
ferences between high
and low
Machs placed
in
formal leadership positions
in
task groups.
It was the
purpose
of
this study
to ex-
amine
some
of the
differences
in
behavior
and
performance
of
task groups
led by
either
high
or low
Machs formally assigned
and
given responsibility
for
their
groups.
Current leadership literature suggests that
unless situational parameters
can be
speci-
fied,
relationships found between leadership
behavior
and
performance will
be of
limited
generalizability.
The
concept
and
opera-
tional
definitions
of
situational favorability
as
used
by
Fiedler
(1967) were adopted
to
study
the
effect
of
this moderating variable
on the
relationship between Machiavellian-
ism
and
leadership behavior. Specifically,
a
favorable
and an
unfavorable situation
were created
by
varying
the
degree
of
task
structure
and the
leader's
power.
Based
on the
literature review,
the
fol-
lowing
hypotheses were stated:
1.
Task oriented groups with high Machs
as
leaders will have higher performance than
task oriented groups with
low
Machs
as
leaders.
2.
The
difference
in
performance between
high
and low
Mach
led
groups will
be
more
pronounced
in the
unfavorable than
in the
favorable situation.
3.
High Machs will give more orders
and
will
initiate
a
greater proportion
of the
group
interaction than
low
Machs.
4.
High Machs will
be
more responsive
to
situational demands. More specifically, they
will
give fewer orders
and
request more
as-
sistance when
the
situation
is
unfavorable.
No
such differences
are
expected
in
terms
of
tension reducing behavior.
No
particular hypotheses were stated with
regard
to
changes
in the
nature
of the
task
itself, irrespective
of
leadership
style.
It was
basically hypothesized that
leaders
with dif-
ferent
Mach
scores
would respond differently
to
variations
in
situational favorability.
Method
Subjects
Subjects
for the
experiment were
84
introductory
psychology
male students
at
Temple University. Machi-
avellian
scales
had
been administered
to all
intro-
ductory
psychology male students some weeks prior
to the
experiment. Fourteen
subjects
with Machiavel-
lian
scores above
75%
were assigned
as
high
Mach
leaders
and 14
students
with
scores below
25%
served
as the low
Mach leaders.
One
half
of
these
high
and
low
Machs were assigned
to a
relatively favorable
situation,
giving
them more power
and
supervising
a
structured
task.
An
additional
56
subjects with Machi-
avellian
scores
in the
mid-50%
range were randomly
assigned
as
group members,
2
group members
per
leader. There were thus
14
groups
with
high
Mach
leaders
and 14
groups with
low
Mach leaders.
All the
subjects
had
volunteered
to
take part
in the
experiment.
Task
The
experimental task consisted
of
constructing
a
bridge
of
Lego plastic cubes. Subjects were told
to
build
the
most
profitable
bridge according
to
specific
criteria given.
The
bridge
had to be
smooth
and
con-
tinuous,
but no
further
technical directions
or
limita-
tions
were given.
The
leader
was not
allowed
to
touch
the
cubes
and was
supposed
to
supervise
the
work
done
by his
group members.
The two
levels
of the
task structure were estab-
lished
as
follows:
1.
Structured situation. Task performance
was
evaluated
according
to one
single criterion,
the
length
of
the
bridge's span,
in
inches, between
the two
nearest supports.
2.
Unstructured situation. Task performance
was
evaluated
according
to a
combination
of the
following
criteria:
(a)
length
of
span between
the two
nearest
supports,
(b)
height
of
span
(from
table
to
lowest point
of
span),
(c)
number
of
pieces used,
and (d)
time
of
work.
The
differences
between
the
structured
and the un-
structured situations were thus established with regard
to the
following
three
of the
four
dimensions adopted
by
Fiedler
(1967)
as a
basis
for the
definition
of
task
structuredness:
(a)
Decision
verifiability—The
cor-
rectness
of the
solution
can
more easily
be
demon-
MACHIAVELLIANISM
83
strated
in the
structured task, since
it
depends
on a
single easily observed factor, namely
the
length
of the
bridge's span, whereas
in the
unstructured situation
the
task related decisions cannot
be
easily
verified
as
to
their
correctness,
(b)
Goal-path
multiplicity—In
the
unstructured situation
the
task
can be
solved
by
means
of a
much larger variety
of
procedures,
due to
the
multiple nature
of the
criteria, than
in the
struc-
tured
situation,
(c)
Solution
specificity—Whereas
in
the
structured task there
is
basically
one
correct solu-
tion
(building
the
longest possible bridge),
in the un-
structured task there
are a
large number
of
possible
solutions that would result
in
successful task completion.
The two
levels
of
leader position power were
as
follows:
1.
High
power,
(a) The
leader
was
instructed
by
the
experimenter privately
and was
given
a
chance
to
experiment with
the
materials
for a few
moments while
his
group members were waiting outside
the
laboratory.
The
instructions concerning
the
task were then pre-
sented
to the
group members directly
by the
leader,
(b)
The
group
was
told that
the
leader
was
selected
for
the
experiment
on the
basis
of
high
scores
on
tech-
nical
and
leadership ability
tests.
Since
all
introductory
psychology
students were previously administered
various personality
and
aptitude
scales
for
experimental
purposes,
the
explanation
was
quite plausible.
The
group members were instructed
by the
experimenter
that
the
leader
had the
authority
to
decide about
any
problem
and
that they should obey
his
orders.
2. Low
power,
(a) In
this situation
the
instructions
were presented
by the
experimenter
to the
whole group
without
referring specifically
to the
leader.
No
special
qualities
of the
leader,
nor the
necessity
for
following
his
decisions,
was
mentioned,
(b) The
leader
did not
have
a
chance
to
experiment with
the
materials before
the
experiment started.
Thus,
the
power position
was
created
by
assigning
the
leader
formal authority,
by
allowing
him
exclusive
access
to
resources
of
information,
and by
presenting
him
as
having highly relevant qualifications.
The
favorable situation combined
high
leader posi-
tion
power
and
structured task demands.
The
unfavor-
able situation included both
a low
power position
and
an
unstructured task.
In the
instructions
the
subjects
were told
to
build
the
most profitable bridge possible.
The
criteria
for the
bridge profitability were detailed,
and
graphs showing
the
transformation
of
levels
of
task
criteria
to
dollar values were presented. Thus,
in the
favorable situation
the
group
was
presented with
a
single graph converting span length
in
inches
to
dollar
values,
whereas
in the
unfavorable condition
four
graphs were presented,
one for
every criterion,
and
the
subjects were told that
the
cumulative dollar value
of
their performance would
be
taken
as an
indication
of
their success
in the
task.
The
graphs were available
to the
subjects throughout
the
experimental trial.
Instruments
The
validity
of the
experimental manipulation
was
measured
by
means
of two
questionnaires.
One
ques-
tionnaire
dealt
with
the
authority
and
knowledge
of
the
leader,
and the
other questionnaire
dealt
with
the
degree
of
structure perceived. Another
set of
questions
was
used
to
check
the
leader's perception about
his
authority
and the
structure
of the
task.
The
postex-
perimental
questionnaire also contained items con-
cerning
the
group members' perception
of the
leader's
efficiency,
warmth,
friendliness,
and
consideration
and
their personal feelings about him.
The
group's task performance
in
terms
of the
bridge
profitability
was
measured according
to the
criteria
described above.
Twelve
categories
of
verbal interactions between
the
leader
and the
group members were established. Seven
categories dealt with
the
leader
as the
source
of
com-
munication.
These categories were leader makes sug-
gestions,
leader makes
decisions,
leader gives explana-
tions,
leader reduces tension, leader
seeks
help, leader
gives
orders,
and
leader works
by
himself.
Six
cate-
gories were used
for
categorizing interactions initiated
by
the
group members. These were group members
make
suggestions, group members argue with leader,
group members make decisions, group members give
explanations,
group members
ask
questions,
and
group
members have internal discussions among themselves.
Another interaction category
was
obtained
by
dividing
the
total number
of
leader communication attempts
by
the
total number
of
group member communication
attempts. This category
was
termed
leader/group
mem-
ber
interaction.
A
complete idea expressed
by a
sub-
ject constituted
a
scoring
unit.
The
interaction categories were observed
and
scored
independently
by two
raters throughout
the
entire
ex-
periment.
The
raters were
two
undergraduate students
of
psychology
who
were thoroughly instructed with
regard
to the
rating system.
The
raters
were unaware
of
the
objective
of the
study
and
were
unfamiliar
with
the
Machiavellianism concept.
The
raters were also
not
informed
of the
nature
of
Mach
scores
in
general
or of the
Mach
differences
between
the
group leaders.
The
experimental trials were observed through
a
one-
way
screen
so
that
the
subjects were unaware
of the
raters' presence.
Results
Manipulation
of
Situational
Favorability
The
power manipulation
was
checked
by
comparing separately
the
leader's
and the
group members' perceptions
of the
leader's
power position.
The
power manipulation
proved
to be
highly significant, both accord-
ing
to
the
leaders'
reports,
F(
1,26)
=
27.94,
p
<
.001,
and the
group members' reports,
F(l,
54) =
16.16,
p <
.001.
The
structure
manipulation
was
checked
in a
similar
way,
separating
the
leaders'
and
group
members'
perceptions.
The
leaders
also
perceived
the
task
as
significantly more structured
in the
favorable
situation,
F(
1,26)
=
8.62,p
<
.01,
but
there were
no
significant differences
in
the
group members' perceptions
of
task
structure, F(l,
54) =
1.84,
p <
.10, Since
84
AMOS
DRORY
AND
URI
M.
GLUSKINOS
mainly
the
leader struggled
with
task struc-
ture
in
terms
of
planning
and
decision mak-
ing,
it is
possible that
the
group members
were less aware
of
this parameter. Generally,
we
may
conclude that
the
manipulation
of
situational favorability
was
successful,
in
particular
from
the
leader's
point
of
view.
Interrater
Reliability
of
Interaction
Categories
To
estimate
the
degree
of
interrater reli-
ability
of the
interaction categories observed,
the
kappa
coefficient
of
agreement
was em-
ployed (Cohen, 1960).
The
kappa
coefficient
obtained
was
.823,
which
is
highly
significant
(p
<
.001)
and
indicates that
a
high propor-
tion
of the
joint judgments
on the
various
categories
are in
agreement.
Performance
The
differences
in
performance between
low
Machs
and
high
Machs were tested sep-
arately
for the
favorable situation
and for
the
unfavorable situation
by
means
of a
/
test. Although
the
performance scores
for
the
high
Mach groups tended
to be
higher
than
for the low
Mach groups
in
both situa-
tions,
the
differences
did not
reach
accept-
able
statistical significance levels (favorable
situation,
t =
1.42,
p >
.05; unfavorable
situation,
t =
1.2,
p >
.05).
Hypotheses
1
and
2
were, thus,
not
supported.
Postexperimental Questionnaire Data
No
significant
differences were
found
due
to
Machiavellianism
on the
questionnaire
data rated
by the
group members
in
terms
of
perceived leader
efficiency,
considera-
tion,
warmth,
and
support.
Observational Data
The
major
differences
between high
and
low
Machs were
found
through
the
observa-
tional data. Table
1
provides two-way anal-
yses
of
variance
and
cell means
for the
sig-
nificant
interaction patterns
in the
groups,
resulting
from
Machiavellian leadership
style
and
from
situational favorability.
As
hypothesized, high Mach leaders gave more
orders
and
initiated
a
greater proportion
of
the
interaction
in the
group than
low
Mach
leaders. High Machs were engaged
signif-
icantly
less
in
tension reducing behavior.
They were also
less
exposed
to
arguments
and
suggestions than
low
Machs. Hypothe-
sis
4,
concerning
the
high
Machs'
greater
flexibility
and
responsiveness
to
situational
demands,
was
also supported
by the
results.
Under
the
unfavorable conditions, high
Machs gave significantly fewer direct orders,
F(l,
24) =
11.56,
p <
.01,
and at the
same
time
sought significantly more help
from
their
group, F(\,
24)
=
10.97,
p <
.01,
and
gave
more suggestions,
F(l,
24) =
4.42,p
<
.05.
The
behavior
of low
Mach leaders remained
remarkably invariant
in
spite
of the
differ-
ence
sin
the
situation (leader
orders,/7
=
.00,
ns,
leader seeks help,
F
=
.25,
ns,
leader's
suggestions,
F =
3.58, ns).
The
intercorrelation coefficients between
the
interaction categories that
significantly
differentiated
between high
and low
Machs
were
as
follows: Leader Reduces Tension
x
Leader Orders,
r =
.12;
Leader
Reduces
Tension
x
Members' Arguments,
r =
.30;
Leader Orders
x
Members' Suggestions,
r
=
.15;
Leader
Orders
x
Members' Argu-
ments,
r =
.27. None
of
these correlations
was
statistically significant.
The
possibility
that some
of the
significant
Fs
reported
for
specific
categories
may
have resulted
in
part
from
substantial negative correlations with
other categories (because
of the
ipsative
na-
ture
of the
interaction scoring system)
may
therefore
be
ruled out.
Discussion
High
and low
Mach
led
groups
did not
differ
in
their productivity. They were
also
not
described
by
their groups
as
acting dif-
ferently.
However, independent observers
did
perceive differences
in
their behavior.
It
is
possible
that
at
least
in an
experimental
situation
of
short duration such
as the
pres-
ent
one, systematic observations constitute
a
more sensitive measure
of
group interac-
tions than postexperimental questionnaires.
It
may be
suggested that
the
subjects
who
had
to
concentrate
on the
experimental task
could
not
attend
to the
interaction
process
in
the
group
as
well
as the
independent
observers.
MACHIAVELLIANISM
85
As
hypothesized, high Machs gave more
orders than
low
Machs. High Machs also
showed
a
greater responsiveness
to
situa-
tional demands, manifested
in the
adoption
of
a
more participative style under
the un-
favorable
conditions. Such
a
change
in the
degree
of
group participation
may be
inter-
preted
as an
attempt
to
better utilize group
resources when faced
with
a
more
difficult
task.
It may be
speculated
that under
real
life
circumstances
in
which task duration
is
longer, such better utilization
of
group
resources would
in the
long
run
positively
affect
group performance.
It may be
noted
that
the
high Machs were engaged
less
than
low
Machs
in
group maintenance functions,
as
indicated
by
their fewer attempts
to re-
duce tension
in
both
the
favorable
and un-
favorable
situations.
In
this connection
it
may
be
worthwhile
to
refer
to the
confusion
that exists
in the
literature
between con-
siderate
and
participative leadership.
Yukl
Table
1
Cell
and
Main
Effect
Means
and F
Values
for
Significant Interaction Categories
Cell
means
Variable
Leader's
suggestions
U
F
T
Leader
works himself
U
F
T
Leader seeks help
U
F
T
Leader
reduces tension
U
F
T
Leader
gives
orders
U
F
T
Members' suggestions
U
F
T
Members' arguments
U
F
T
Leader/group member
interaction
U
F
T
Low
Mach
1.71
4.28
2.99
1.57
.57
1.07
.71
.85
.78
1.28
2.42
1.85
9.71
9.71
9.71
5.85
6.28
6.06
4.28
5.57
4.92
1.04
.52
.78
High
Mach
5.28
2.42
3.85
1.57
.42
.99
3.57
.42
1.99
.28
.71
.49
9.85
26.00
17.92
3.28
2.57
2.92
3.14
1.28
2.21
3.40
1.60
2.50
Total
3.49
3.35
1.57
.49
2.14
.63
.78
1.56
9.78
7.85
6.06
4.60
3.71
3.42
2.22
1.06
Situa-
Inter-
Mach tion action
.74
.02
7.45*
.02
5.86*
.02
3.27 4.99* 5.99*
5.95*
2.00*
.38
6.12*
5.91* 5.91*
11.56**
.07 .38
9.05**
.09
3.02
6.29* 2.61 1.71
Note.
U =
unfavorable
situation,
F =
favorable situation,
T =
total, Mach
=
Machiavellianism.
*
p <
.05.
** p <
.01.
86
AMOS
DRORY
AND
URI
M.
GLUSKINOS
(1.971)
has
shown
that
both conceptually
and
empirically,
"consideration"
and
"partici-
pation"
can be
considered
as
separate
di-
mensions
and
participation
is
considerate
only when
subordinates
desire
so.
Thus
the
increased task
difficulties
that confronted
the
leaders
in the
unfavorable situations
may
have prompted
the
high Machs
to
make more
use of
their group members' abilities.
But
there
is no
evidence that high Machs became
more considerate when
the
situation became
more complex.
In
conclusion, high Mach leaders proved
to
have
a
wider range
of
appropriate
be-
haviors
than
the low
Mach
leaders.
Yet the
high
Mach leaders were
found
to be
con-
sistently
less concerned with their group
members'
feelings. Thus
the
question
is
raised
of
whether
high
Machs would
be ca-
pable
of
addressing themselves
to
followers'
needs when
the
situation demands
it.
Reference
Notes
1.
Geis,
F. L., &
Christie,
R.
Machiavellianism
and
tactics
of
manipulation.
Symposium presented
at
the
meeting
of the
American Psychological
As-
sociation,
Chicago,
September
1965.
2.
Geis,
F.
L.,
Weinheimer,
S., &
Berger,
D.
Playing
legislature: Machiavellianism
in
log-rolling.
Paper
presented
at the
meeting
of the
American Psycho-
logical
Association,
New
York, September 1966.
3.
Feiler,
J.
Machiavellianism, dissonance
and at-
titude
change.
Unpublished manuscript,
New
York
University,
1967.
4.
Geis,
F.,
Krupat,
E., &
Berger,
D.
Taking over
in
group
discussion. Unpublished manuscript,
New
York University, 1965.
References
Bogart,
K.
Machiavellianism
and
individual
differ-
ences
in
response
to
cognitive
dissonance.
Unpub-
lished
doctoral dissertation,
New
York
University,
1968.
Christie,
R.,
&
Geis,
F. L.
Studies
in
Machiavellian-
ism.
New
York: Academic Press, 1970.
Cohen,
J. A
coefficient
of
agreement
for
nominal scales.
Educational
and
Psychological
Measurement,
1960,
20,
37-46.
Epstein,
G. F.
Machiavelli
and the
devil's
advocate.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
1969,
//,
38-41.
Fiedler,
F. E. A
theory
of
leadership
effectiveness.
New
York:
McGraw-Hill,
1967.
Geis,
F. L.
Machiavellianism
in a
semireal world.
Proceedings
of the
76th Annual Convention
of the
American Psychological
Association,
1968,
J,
407-
408. (Summary)
Oksenberg,
L.
Machiavellianism
and
organization
in
five man
task oriented groups.
Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation,
Columbia
University,
1968.
Yukl,
G.
Towards
a
behavioral theory
of
leadership.
Organizational Behavior
and
Human
Performance,
1971,6,414-440.
Received March
16,
1979
... In the aftermath of World War II early empirical work sought to identify personality constructs associated with motivation to achieve and retain power (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950;Christie & Geis, 1970;Lasswell, 1948). Later studies focused on the relationship between personality and political ideology (Anderson, 2009;Caprara & Zimbardo, 2004;Vecchione & Caprara, 2009), and political behaviour in the workplace (Biberman, 1985;Drory & Gluskinos, 1980;Grams & Rogers, 1990). More recently there has been growing interest among management scholars in the characteristics needed for effective political leadership at work (Ammeter, Douglas, Gardner, Hochwarter & Ferris, 2002;Ferris, Blickle et al. 2008 Of particular relevance here, however, are studies that have sought to identify individual characteristics associated with successful performance in political roles (c.f. ...
... Machiavellianism. Originally defined as a personality disposition reflecting an individual's willingness to control or manipulate others (Christie & Geis, 1970), Machiavellian employees are more likely to use deceit to influence others (Biberman, 1985;Drory & Gluskinos, 1980;Grams & Rogers, 1990). Given popular descriptions of politicians as Machiavellian (Deluga, 2001) one might reasonably predict a positive relationship between Machiavellianism and political performance. ...
... A review of personal goals and personal strategies of 20 leaders evaluated in the previous section reveals that some personal goals and personal strategies can be interpreted with certain existing theories. Considering personal goals, a career turnaround goal finds resonance in the social cognitive career theory (Lent et al, 2002;Lent, 2005) and the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977;; a political image/legitimacy goal can be rationalized with an extension of the organizational legitimacy theory (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975;Suchman, 1995); a reputation related goal can be justified with the reputation theory (Zinko et al, 2007); and a leadership stability goal can fit with Machiavellianism (Christie and Geis, 1970;Drory and Gluskinos, 1980). Similarly, a positive personal strategy aiming at crisis pre-emption, resolution or turnaround can be explained with the frameworks of positive leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005), negative-focus personal strategies (play victim, villainize, cover-up etc) can connect with styles of negative leadership (Einarsen et al, 2010), and personal strategies aiming at politically balanced results or middle-path are consistent with Simon's (1955) satisficing behaviour. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper analyses the personal strategy driving COVID-19 crisis behaviours of 20 country leaders. It explains the con�cept of personal strategy and establishes its theoretical basis. It also reviews leaders’ COVID-19 action contexts, actions and associated dynamics to infer the personal strategy driving their behaviour. The article finds the best personal strategy for COVID-19 crisis management as ‘crisis resolution’ and its variants adopted by leaders with a track record in crisis management or facing serious political compulsions—the latter, with a ‘career turnaround’ motive, were focused on erasing unfavourable political image. Leaders following personal strategies of self or negative orientations were the least successful or most unpopular. The article categorizes personal strategies broadly as crisis-focused, negative-focused, ideology-focused and mixed-focused, and it shows that personal goals and personal strategies of country leaders could be interpreted with existing theories. Drawing from a previous study on the same 20 leaders, the article shows that personal strategy of ‘crisis-focus’ is associated with positive styles of crisis action and leader behaviour, ‘negative-focus’ is related to negative action and behavioural styles, and ‘mixed-focus’ is linked to ‘strategic’ actions and transactional behaviour. Except for ideology-focus, leaders’ choice of personal strategy is not found exclusively related to the developmental or geopolitical status of their countries, which proves that personal strategy is a leader phenomenon. Differences in personal strategy among leaders led to different results in different countries—positive orientation resulted in positive outcomes and negative focus caused negative outcomes. The article concludes that personal strategy as a medium of transmitting leader traits into leader behaviour through support of personal goal can fill the gap in the current literature in connecting personal traits to leader behaviour.
... A review of personal goals and personal strategies of 20 leaders evaluated in the previous section reveals that some personal goals and personal strategies can be interpreted with certain existing theories. Considering personal goals, a career turnaround goal finds resonance in the social cognitive career theory (Lent et al, 2002;Lent, 2005) and the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977;; a political image/legitimacy goal can be rationalized with an extension of the organizational legitimacy theory (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975;Suchman, 1995); a reputation related goal can be justified with the reputation theory (Zinko et al, 2007); and a leadership stability goal can fit with Machiavellianism (Christie and Geis, 1970;Drory and Gluskinos, 1980). Similarly, a positive personal strategy aiming at crisis pre-emption, resolution or turnaround can be explained with the frameworks of positive leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005), negative-focus personal strategies (play victim, villainize, cover-up etc) can connect with styles of negative leadership (Einarsen et al, 2010), and personal strategies aiming at politically balanced results or middle-path are consistent with Simon's (1955) satisficing behaviour. ...
... For this reason, the results of numerous studies devoted to examining the expression level of Machiavellian behavior (Backer, O'Hair, 2007;Drory, Gluskinos, 1980;Gemmill, Heisler, 1972;Hunt, Chonko, 1984 Harmon, 2002). The quality of researches dealing with Machiavellianism level expressed among student population is contained in a few moments. ...
Article
Full-text available
Using the "Mach IV Scale", this paper analyses the level of Machiavellian behavior among the student population in the Republic of Serbia. The obtained results were compared with the outcome of similar studies conducted in the United States and Indonesia. Results indicated that Machiavellianism level, manifested among the student population in the Republic of Serbia, is higher than Machiavellianism level manifested among students in the United States and Indonesia. The mixed results of this study point to the conclusion that economic development of a certain country (expressed by GDP per capita) could not be a base for reliable conclusion regarding the potential expression level of Machiavellian behavior of state's population. These results can be useful for managers, in general, and for managers in the Republic of Serbia, particularly, in the process of recruiting and selecting new candidates, and in the course of delegating tasks to existing members of the organization.
... The studies in the literature regarding Machiavellianism generally handle the concept in conjunction with other subjects of organizational behavior such as the big five personality model and other personality traits (Lee and Ashton, 2014;Allsopp et al.,1991), emotional intelligence (Austin et al., 2007), work performance, control focus, work satisfaction, narcissism, perception of leadership, and equality (Mudrack, 1990;McHoskey, 1995;Drory and Gluskinos, 1980;Gable and Topol, 1987;Heisler and Gemmill, 1977;Solar and Bruehl, 1971;Gable and Dangello, 1994;Russel, 1974;Özsoy and Ardıç, 2017;Demirtaş and Biçkes, 2014;Lopes and Fletcher, 2004), and it is accepted as an important tool for examining the reflection of the employee's personality on the organization. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose-The main goal of this article is to review, update, and critically evaluate this growing base of evidence in order to elucidate many of the key issues regarding dark triad personality traits and leadership effectiveness, as well as to propose numerous study future goals. Study design/methodology/approach-The study has undergone a review of secondary database of the past years of journals, articles, blogs, and the web of science. Findings-It seems like a positively relationship build up between the variables and indicating that a leaders who score high in dark triad personality they are desire for powers. All the traits equally necessities to choosing great and successful leader. Originality/value:The author makes determined efforts to explain pastyear's literature on dark triad personality which make effects on leader's perspective. Ramifications for workplace behaviours and businesses must cope with these issues. The paper concludes by discussing the research findings' practical ramifications, including topics like; psychological contract breach affects dark triad CWBs males than for females.The narcissistic of DT is connected to vocational goals, such as career choice and the motivation to attain leadership/ responsibility roles.
Chapter
Zusammenfassung Das folgende Kapitel befasst sich mit der Nutzbarmachung von Diversity in Organisationen und der Rolle von Führung in diesem Prozess. Zu Beginn werden aktuelle gesellschaftliche Entwicklungen, wie Migration und Globalisierung, aufgegriffen, um die Relevanz von Diversity und Diversity Management aufzuzeigen. Zudem wird die aktuelle Arbeitsmarktsituation von Migrierenden in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich betrachtet. Darüber hinaus wird das Konstrukt der sozialen Diskriminierung eingehend beleuchtet und auf die Entstehung, Wirkung und Aufrechterhaltung diskriminierender Strukturen und Verhaltensweisen im heutigen Deutschland eingegangen. Anschließend werden die Vor- und Nachteile der Arbeit in heterogenen Teams eingehend diskutiert sowie Modelle und Führungsstile im Hinblick auf die Führung diverser Arbeitsgruppen erläutert. Führungsverhalten und die Erwartung an die Führungskraft werden ergänzend aus einer kulturvergleichenden Perspektive betrachtet und es wird herausgearbeitet, welche Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede diesbezüglich vorhanden sein können. Abschließend wird auf die Operationalisierung von Führungserfolg in interkulturellen Kontexten eingegangen. Einerseits wird die Beziehung zwischen Mitarbeitenden und Führungskraft beleuchtet, andererseits die Wahrnehmung von angemessenem Verhalten der Führungskraft durch die Mitarbeitenden diskutiert.
Article
Purpose The present paper intends to study the relationship between Machiavellianism and effectiveness. It investigates the parallel mediating effects of self-esteem and ethical leadership on Machiavellianism and leader effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach The study was administered to 260 managers from the banking sector. Statistical tools, like descriptive statistics, Pearson product moment correlation, reliability analysis, validity analysis and parallel-mediated regression analysis, were used to analyze the data. Drawing from the conservation of resource (COR) theory, a parallel mediation model was empirically tested. Findings The study found a negative association between Machiavellianism and leader effectiveness, and the parallel mediating impact of self-esteem and ethical leadership reduced the impact of Machiavellianism on leader effectiveness. Practical implications The work suggests that the banking sector leaders can adapt ethical behaviors to create positive leader–member relations contributing to increased organizational efficiency and productivity. Originality/value The unique contribution of the study includes determining the mediating roles of self-esteem and ethical leadership, especially in the Indian context. Despite the availability of past studies on the constructs, the studies on the parallel mediating relationship between Machiavellianism and effectiveness was limited.
Article
This study builds on insights from the upper echelons tradition in strategy to examine the effects of chief executive officer (CEO) Machiavellianism on relevant firm costs. While Machiavellianism has been usually construed as a purely negative trait, we argue that the pragmatic focus on the outcomes of exchanges and psychological obsession with winning in transactions that Machiavellian CEOs infuse in their organizations can have important effects on firm cost, a fundamental but frequently understudied driver of financial performance in strategic management research. In line with our arguments, we find that CEO Machiavellianism has negative effects on production costs, financing costs, and acquisition premiums. We find support for our ideas with a sample of S&P 500 CEOs, operationalizing CEO Machiavellianism using a videometric approach In this study, we investigate the effect of CEO Machiavellianism on firms’ costs. We show that firms with more Machiavellian CEOs will have lower costs than other firms in the market. Rather counterintuitively, this study suggests an explanation for why a personal characteristic that is usually seen as problematic for organizations is rather common in their upper ranks. Ultimately, the study demonstrates the value of the bargaining attitude that Machiavellian CEOs bring to their organizations and suggests this value should be weighed against their risks or acknowledged to manage the risks this common personal characteristic implies.
Article
Full-text available
Previous research has mainly focused on the negative correlates of dark triad (DT) personality traits. However, recent findings indicate that DT have positive, adaptive aspects. Specifically, empirical studies revealed a positive relationship between subclinical narcissism and mental toughness. Increased mental toughness is connected to various positive outcomes such as increased physical activity, lower symptoms of depression, and perceived stress. The current work extends these findings by testing a mediation model where subclinical narcissism associates with resilience through mental toughness. Two studies with five independent samples (N TOTAL = 1009) were conducted. Participants who had high levels of narcissism were more mentally tough and resilient than participants who had low levels of narcissism. Subclinical psychopathy and Machiavellianism were largely unrelated to mental toughness and resilience. These studies contribute to the theory on dark personality traits by providing further evidence of the positive aspects of subclinical narcissism.
A great deal of the apparent inconsistency in the leadership literature may be due to semantic confusion about leader behavior and to the absence of a conceptual framework which includes intermediate and situational variables. A system of three distinct leader behavior dimensions is proposed to reduce this confusion. Two of the dimensions are similar to the familiar variables, Consideration and Initiating Structure. The third dimension, Decision-Centralization, refers to the extent to which a leader allows his subordinates to participate in decision-making. A discrepancy model is developed to explain the relation between leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with the leader. A multiple linkage model is developed to explain how the leader behavior variables interact with situational variables to determine group productivity. A review of the leadership literature revealed that the results of previous research are generally consistent with the proposed models. The compatibility of the linkage model with Fiedler's Contingency Model is discussed, and suggestions for future research are offered.
Article
80 high and low scorers on Christie's scales measuring agreement with statements by Machiavelli were Ss in an experiment contrasting counter-attitudinal role playing with a nonrole-playing condition. Role-playing Ss were required to improvise a talk against fluoridation. Monetary incentive was kept low and constant across conditions. On the basis of a hypothesized difference in susceptibility to dissonance stemming from discrepant role-playing, it was predicted that opinion-change scores would display an interaction effect between Machiavelli scale score and role-playing condition in the direction of greater opinion change by low Mach scorers in the counterattitudinal role-playing condition. The prediction was sustained. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
A theory of leadership effectiveness Geis, F. L. Machiavellianism in a semireal worldSummary) Oksenberg, L. Machiavellianism and organization in five man task oriented groups
  • F E Fiedler
Fiedler, F. E. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Geis, F. L. Machiavellianism in a semireal world. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1968, J, 407-408. (Summary) Oksenberg, L. Machiavellianism and organization in five man task oriented groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1968.
Machiavellianism and tactics of manipulation. Symposium presented at the meeting of the
  • F L Geis
  • R Christie
Geis, F. L., & Christie, R. Machiavellianism and tactics of manipulation. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, September 1965.