Leaders and machiavellian manifestations: workers' innovation development and business performance

Abstract

This research aims to assess the level of manipulation of leaders and Machiavellian manifestations in the work process within selected socio-demographic characteristics of employees. Based on the described theoretical basis, three hypotheses were established. The hypotheses concern is examining the differences between manipulation and Machiavellian manifestations regarding employees' residence (urban or rural), the sphere of the organization (private or public) in which they work, and the age of employees. The data were obtained through a questionnaire survey in which 123 respondents participated. The study involved methodological tools such as CASADI (Calculativness, Self-Assertion, Diplomacy) and MPS (Machiavellian Personality Scale). The new CASADI methodology identifies Machiavellian manifestations in business and managerial behavior. It contains statements that relate to the respondent's opinion on manipulation between people. The MPS methodology was created for leaders in determining the level of their manipulation through four factors determining Machiavellianism. The survey results were evaluated through a t-test and Pearson's correlation coefficient. The findings confirmed the differences in Self-Assertion, Desire for Control, and Distrust regarding respondents' residence. The study of age differences recorded the statistical significance for the attribute of Diplomacy within Machiavellian manifestations and the attribute of Desire for social status within the manipulation of leaders. Within the differences between the private and public spheres, statistical significance was recorded for the attributes of Machiavellian manifestations of Computation and Self-Enforcement, and for the attributes of the manipulation of leaders Amorality, Desire for Control and Distrust of others. The research results indicated that employees living in the city might have a higher degree of Machiavellianism. It is reflected in their motivation for for-profit and the need to control others and not trust them. Research suggested that the rate of Machiavellianism decreases with age. In the case of the organization activity where the employee works, it was found that Machiavellian tendencies were more pronounced in employees of the private sphere.

Manifestation of Dark Personality Behavior: Indigenous Study on Indonesian Workers

“…Machiavellian individuals tend to switch groups easily, focusing solely on their goals (Tomkova, 2021). They may end interpersonal relationships once their goals are achieved (Usman, 2020).…”

Machiavellian leadership in organisations: a review of theory and research

“…Furthermore, the literature on Machiavellian leaders is outcome-focused—whether it is the influence of Machiavellianism on leader behaviour, the influence of leader Machiavellianism on follower performance (Tomkova et al ., 2021; Smith and Webster, 2017), follower wellbeing (Mirkovic and Bianchi, 2019; Stradovnik and Stare, 2018), followers’ use of strategies (Capezio et al ., 2017; Jaiswal and Bhal, 2014) or the impact on the organisational setting. By examining leadership as an “outcome”, it is treated as a static object that influences the world rather than an “open-ended process”; that is, collaborative and distributed (Kelly, 2014).…”

“…The recent rise in unethical, immoral and self-interest-driven practices in the workplace, by leaders, employees (followers and non-followers) and other stakeholders both within and external to the workplace has caused the study of Machiavellianism to be considered an essential aspect of management and organisational behaviour. Due to its relevance and its ability to advance organisational and management research (Dahling et al ., 2009), scholars are showing greater interest in the topic (Genau et al ., 2022; Mohamed and Samman, 2022; Annebel et al ., 2021; Koo and Lee, 2021; Tomkova et al ., 2021).…”

Business process reengineering leadership: princes of Machiavelli

“…Machiavelli as the rubric for BPR is further solidified because both share commonalities in contextual control such as leader-member relations, task structure and position power. Previous research has applied Machiavelli to such management contexts, specifically job satisfaction, job performance and management structure (Tomkova et al, 2022;Gable and Topol, 1987). The findings from these studies provide theoretical foundation as well as methodological precedent.…”