Machiavellianism in the workplace

Last updated

Machiavellianism in the workplace is a concept studied by many organizational psychologists. [1] Conceptualized originally by Richard Christie and Florence Geis, Machiavellianism in psychology refers to a personality trait construct based on a cold, callous and exploitative orientation. [2] [3] [4] It has been adapted and applied to the context of the workplace and organizations by psychology academics. [5] Oliver James wrote on the effects of Machiavellianism and other dark triad personality traits in the workplace, the others being narcissism and psychopathy. [6]

Contents

Characteristics

When examining individuals who score high in Machiavellianism, research has identified several characteristic unethical behaviors that commonly manifest, including engaging in theft, practicing deception and dishonesty, deliberately sabotaging others' work, and participating in various forms of cheating to gain advantages. [7]

High Machs can exhibit high levels of charisma, and their leadership can be beneficial in some areas. [8] The presence of Machiavellianism in an organization's employees has been positively correlated with counterproductive workplace behaviour and workplace deviance. [9] The origin of exploitative tactics entering the workplace can be tied to multiple factors, such as distrust towards others, pessimism, survival/self-protection tactics, or even the gender of involved parties. [10]

A new interpretation of how MACH levels specifically affects organizational contexts, encompasses three key elements: the assertion and maintenance of workplace authority, the implementation of severe management practices, and the employment of manipulative behavioral strategies to achieve desired outcomes. [9]

The Dark Triad personality traits correlate with distinct influence tactics in workplace settings. Psychopathy correlates with threat-based tactics, while Machiavellianism correlates with charm and overt manipulation of people and situations. Narcissism correlates with using physical appearance as an influence tactic. The Dark Triad traits showed stronger intercorrelations when measuring hard (forceful/aggressive) tactics compared to soft tactics. This suggests these personality traits facilitate workplace influence primarily through aggressive and forceful methods rather than subtle approaches. [11]

Leadership

The leadership of High Machs tends to be more unethical and destructive than other types of leadership. [12] Unconstructive behaviors may appear in the workplace due to signals being sent from leaders to their employees. [13] According to the findings of a study conducted in 2016, there was a particular relationship between low-ethical leadership behaviors and higher levels of manipulative behaviors from their followers. [13] However, the followers do not have to have high levels of Machiavellianism. This suggests that these negative behaviors could be unintentional and are a result of employees trying to fulfill their workplace responsibilities. [13]

High levels of Machiavellianism among leaders have been positively associated with higher ratings of abusive supervision among regular workers, contributing to low job satisfaction, which results in a negative impact on the workers' well-being. [14] It has also been documented that employees who are high in Machiavellianism may participate in knowledge hiding, a technique of withholding or hiding knowledge from co-workers. [15] This could then lead to damage in co-worker relations and distrust in the workplace. [15] Furthermore, employees high in Machiavellianism may not only target their co-workers but also their supervisors. According to previous study findings, employees high in Machiavellianism may engage in emotionally manipulative behaviors toward their supervisors, especially those low on ethical leadership. [15]

A research paper concluded that employees high on Machiavellianism who experienced the leadership from high Machs showed significantly decreased trust in their leaders. The study found a direct effect of employee Machiavellianism on trust and stress, with an indirect effect of trust on employee stress, but did not find substantial evidence for a conditional indirect effect on unethical work behaviors. [16]

Counterproductive work behaviors

Research examining relationships between Machiavellianism, emotional manipulation, counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) used construct replication methodology across two Amazon Mechanical Turk samples. Different measurement instruments across samples showed Machiavellianism positively correlates with CWBs and emotional manipulation. Emotional manipulation was identified as a mediating factor between Machiavellianism and CWBs. Personality traits such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, emotional intelligence—emotional control capabilities weakened the indirect effect of Machiavellianism on CWBs through emotional manipulation. Self-reported political skill strengthened this relationship. Emotional manipulation serves as a mechanism for Machiavellianism manifesting in negative workplace behaviors. This relationship can be moderated by personality characteristics and interpersonal skills. [17]

Given the detrimental impact of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in workplace settings, researchers analyzed how Machiavellianism influences the relationship between role conflict and CWB in Chinese organizations. Data collected across three phases demonstrated that role conflict triggered CWB through emotional exhaustion, with Machiavellianism serving as a buffering factor. Employees scoring higher in Machiavellianism showed a weaker connection between role conflict and emotional exhaustion, ultimately resulting in a reduced likelihood of engaging in CWB when faced with role conflicts. [18]

Job satisfaction

Machiavellianism and psychopathy showed negative correlations with job satisfaction, with perceived competitiveness mediating these relationships. [19]

Impact on employee satisfaction and well being

Being under the leadership of those high on Machiavellianism can negatively impact the performance or productivity inside an organization. A study showed a link between job satisfaction and level of Machiavellianism, in which the higher the level of MACH orientation by upper management and leaders, the higher the chance of employees experiencing lower job satisfaction. [20] In the same study, it was found that managers with high levels of Machiavellianism also reported higher job strain, less job satisfaction, and fewer perceived opportunities for formal control in the work environment. [20]

Research has shown that high levels of Machiavellianism, both exuding the traits and witnessing the traits in the workplace, correlate with higher levels of job strain, lower levels of job satisfaction, and lower levels of overall career satisfaction. [7]

Perceived actions of Machiavellianism can cause significant stress and lead to distrust among employees and leaders. [12] This can be due to the manipulative behaviors, low empathy, and self-focused motives that individuals high in Machiavellianism may exude in their workplaces. [12] As a result of being potential victims of these behaviors, employees may experience a lack of trust, higher levels of stress, and a lower sense of commitment to the workplace. [12]

Bullying in the workplace is another problem that can arise from Machiavellianism and that can contribute to stress levels among workers. A study shows a correlation between workplace bullying experiences and Machiavellianism levels, which usually results in lower job satisfaction among those workers being a victim of workplace bullying. [21]

Career choices and advancement

Individuals high in machiavellianism tend to gravitate towards particular careers, especially those that require a high degree of competitiveness needed to succeed. [22] High Machs are ambitious enough to cut corners and use aggressive means if it is necessary to get ahead in their careers. [22] One study found that "Machiavellianism was positively related to leadership position and career satisfaction". [23] Individuals high in machiavellianism are especially drawn to leadership and management positions, which became an important subject in the primary literature. Sales careers also attract dark triad individuals, with one study stating that such individuals are "prevalent" in the industry. [24] One study noted that those who possess high Machiavellianism levels "are more productive but received lower overall managerial ratings", and that "Machiavellianism may in certain circumstances, be somewhat advantageous for long-term sales performance." [25] Machiavellianism was also associated with the use of "hard" (i.e. aggressive and hostile behavior) and "soft" (i.e. joking/kidding, offering compliments) tactics in the workforce. [26] One's political skill in the workplace and elsewhere may even mask the behaviors and characteristics associated with machiavellianism. [27] It was shown that those high on Machiavellianism are more drawn to academic majors like economics, law, and politics, as opposed to the "person-oriented" majors like education, nursing, and social work that were associated with lower Machiavellianism scores. [28]

Workplace success

Research examining leaders' Dark Triad traits and their impact on subordinate outcomes revealed that leader Machiavellianism and psychopathy negatively affect subordinates' career success and well-being. [29] Individuals high in MACH found it easier to obtain leadership positions, and a better salary. [30]

Job interviews

Individuals who are high in Machiavellianism may be more willing and more skilled in deceiving and less likely to give honest answers during interviews. [31] [32] [33] Additionally, those higher on machiavellianism have stronger intentions to use deception in interviews compared to psychopaths or narcissists and are also more likely to perceive the use of lying in interviews as fair. [34] [35] Furthermore, men and women high in Machiavellianism may use different tactics to influence interviewers. According to a study, which examined how much applicants allowed the interviewers to direct the topics covered during the interview stated that women high in Machiavellianism tended to allow interviewers more freedom to direct the content of the interview, whereas men high in Machiavellianism gave interviewers the least amount of freedom in directing the content of the interview. [36] Men high in Machiavellianism were also more likely to make up information about themselves or their experiences during job interviews. [37] On the other hand, an interviewer or human resource person high in Machiavellianism is likely to manipulate or lie or change his or her words during an interview or job hiring process.

Workplace bullying overlap

Individuals scoring high in Machiavellianism tend to manipulate and exploit others to further their own agendas and maintain interpersonal dominance. Research indicates that individuals scoring highly on Machiavellianism commonly engage in various forms of workplace misconduct, including withholding critical information from colleagues, strategically undermining others' reputations with management, failing to fulfill their professional responsibilities, and engaging in the dissemination of false information about their coworkers. [38]

According to previous studies there was a positive correlation between Machiavellianism and increased involvement in workplace bullying. [21] Furthermore, the groups of bullies and bully-victims had a higher Machiavellianism level compared to the groups of victims and persons non-involved in bullying. [39] The results showed that being bullied was negatively related to the perceptions of clan and adhocracy cultures and positively related to the perceptions of hierarchy culture. [39] Apart from these, another research showed that Machiavellianism was positively associated with subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision (an overlapping concept with workplace bullying). [40]

A study conducted in Poland examined the relationship between workplace bullying (from both victim and perpetrator perspectives), employee Machiavellianism, and perceptions of organizational culture using the Cameron and Quinn framework. The research, which surveyed 117 employees across various Polish organizations, utilized self-reporting methods to gather data on bullying experiences and perpetration. The findings confirmed that Machiavellianism was predictive of bullying behavior, with both bullies and bully-victims demonstrating higher levels of Machiavellianism compared to victims and non-involved individuals. Through moderated regression analysis, Machiavellianism was identified as a significant moderator in the relationship between perceptions of both adhocracy and hierarchy cultures and bullying victimization. [41]

See also

Related Research Articles

Industrial and organizational psychology "focuses the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I-O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations." It is an applied discipline within psychology and is an international profession. I-O psychology is also known as occupational psychology in the United Kingdom, organisational psychology in Australia and New Zealand, and work and organizational (WO) psychology throughout Europe and Brazil. Industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology is the broader, more global term for the science and profession.

Emotional intelligence (EI), also known as emotional quotient (EQ), is the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions. High emotional intelligence includes emotional recognition of emotions of the self and others, using emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, discerning between and labeling of different feelings, and adjusting emotions to adapt to environments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job satisfaction</span> Attitude of a person towards work

Job satisfaction, employee satisfaction or work satisfaction is a measure of workers' contentment with their job, whether they like the job or individual aspects or facets of jobs, such as nature of work or supervision. Job satisfaction can be measured in cognitive (evaluative), affective, and behavioral components. Researchers have also noted that job satisfaction measures vary in the extent to which they measure feelings about the job. or cognitions about the job.

Organizational behavior or organisational behaviour is the "study of human behavior in organizational settings, the interface between human behavior and the organization, and the organization itself". Organizational behavioral research can be categorized in at least three ways:

Workplace bullying is a persistent pattern of mistreatment from others in the workplace that causes either physical or emotional harm. It includes verbal, nonverbal, psychological, and physical abuse, as well as humiliation. This type of workplace aggression is particularly difficult because, unlike typical school bullies, workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of both their organization and society. In most cases, workplace bullying is reported as being carried out by someone who is in a position of authority over the victim. However, bullies can also be peers or subordinates. When subordinates participate in bullying, this is referred to as ‘upwards bullying.’ The least visible form of workplace bullying involves upwards bullying where bullying tactics are manipulated and applied against a superior, often for strategically motivated outcomes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Narcissism</span> Excessive preoccupation with oneself

Narcissism is a self-centered personality style characterized as having an excessive preoccupation with oneself and one's own needs, often at the expense of others. Narcissism, rooted in Greek mythology, has evolved into a psychological concept studied extensively since the early 20th century, highlighting its relevance across various societal domains.

Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality, is a personality construct characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, in combination with traits of boldness, disinhibition, and egocentrism. These traits are often masked by superficial charm and immunity to stress, which create an outward appearance of apparent normalcy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affective events theory</span> Psychological model

Affective events theory (AET) is an industrial and organizational psychology model developed by organizational psychologists Howard M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano to explain how emotions and moods influence job performance and job satisfaction. The model explains the linkages between employees' internal influences and their reactions to incidents that occur in their work environment that affect their performance, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. The theory proposes that affective work behaviors are explained by employee mood and emotions, while cognitive-based behaviors are the best predictors of job satisfaction. The theory proposes that positive-inducing as well as negative-inducing emotional incidents at work are distinguishable and have a significant psychological impact upon workers' job satisfaction. This results in lasting internal and external affective reactions exhibited through job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dark triad</span> Offensive personality types

The dark triad is a psychological theory of personality, first published by Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams in 2002, that describes three notably offensive, but non-pathological personality types: Machiavellianism, sub-clinical narcissism, and sub-clinical psychopathy. Each of these personality types is called dark because each is considered to contain malevolent qualities.

Job performance assesses whether a person performs a job well. Job performance, studied academically as part of industrial and organizational psychology, also forms a part of human resources management. Performance is an important criterion for organizational outcomes and success. John P. Campbell describes job performance as an individual-level variable, or something a single person does. This differentiates it from more encompassing constructs such as organizational performance or national performance, which are higher-level variables.

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is employee's behavior that goes against the legitimate interests of an organization. This behavior can harm the organization, other people within it, and other people and organizations outside it, including employers, other employees, suppliers, clients, patients and citizens. It has been proposed that a person-by-environment interaction (the relationship between a person's psychological and physical capacities and the demands placed on those capacities by the person's social and physical environment.) can be utilized to explain a variety of counterproductive behaviors. For instance, an employee who is high on trait anger is more likely to respond to a stressful incident at work with CWB.

Workplace incivility has been defined as low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others. The authors hypothesize there is an "incivility spiral" in the workplace made worse by "asymmetric global interaction". Incivility is distinct from aggression. The reduction of workplace incivility is an area for industrial and organizational psychology research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">HEXACO model of personality structure</span> Six-dimensional model of human personality

The HEXACO model of personality structure is a six-dimensional model of human personality that was created by Ashton and Lee and explained in their book, The H Factor of Personality, based on findings from a series of lexical studies involving several European and Asian languages. The six factors, or dimensions, include honesty-humility (H), emotionality (E), extraversion (X), agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness to experience (O). Each factor is composed of traits with characteristics indicating high and low levels of the factor. The HEXACO model was developed through similar methods as other trait taxonomies and builds on the work of Costa and McCrae and Goldberg. The model, therefore, shares several common elements with other trait models. However, the HEXACO model is unique mainly due to the addition of the honesty-humility dimension.

The honesty-humility factor is one of the six basic personality traits of the HEXACO model of personality. Honesty-humility is a basic personality trait representing the tendency to be fair and genuine when dealing with others, in the sense of cooperating with others, even when someone might utilize them without suffering retaliation. People with very high levels of the honesty-humility avoid manipulating for personal gain, feel little desire to break rules, are uninterested in wealth and luxuries, and feel no special right to elevated social status. Conversely, persons with very low levels on this scale will compliment others to get whatever they want, are inclined to break the rules for personal gains, are motivated by material gain, and feel a strong sense of self-importance.

Abusive supervision is most commonly studied in the context of the workplace, although it can arise in other areas such as in the household and at school. Abusive supervision has been investigated as major cause of negative outcomes in managing employees. Studies have been conducted to investigate the link between abusive supervision and different workplace events.

Narcissism in the workplace involves the impact of narcissistic employees and managers in workplace settings.

While psychopaths typically represent a very small percentage of workplace staff, the presence of psychopathy in the workplace, especially within senior management, can do enormous damage. Indeed, psychopaths are usually most present at higher levels of corporate structure, and their actions often cause a ripple effect throughout an organization, setting the tone for an entire corporate culture. Examples of detrimental effects include increased bullying, conflict, stress, staff turnover, absenteeism, and reduction in both productivity and social responsibility. Ethical standards of entire organisations can be badly damaged if a corporate psychopath is in charge. A 2017 UK study found that companies with leaders who show "psychopathic characteristics" destroy shareholder value, tending to have poor future returns on equity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trait activation theory</span>

Trait activation theory is based on a specific model of job performance, and can be considered an elaborated or extended view of personality-job fit. Specifically, it is how an individual expresses their traits when exposed to situational cues related to those traits. These situational cues may stem from organization, social, and/or task cues. These cues can activate personality traits that are related to job tasks and organizational expectations that the organization values. These cues may also elicit trait-related behaviors that are not directly related to job performance.

The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) is a brief 12-question personality inventory test to assess the possible presence of the three subclinical dark triad traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. The DTDD was developed to identify the dark triad traits among subclinical adult populations. It is a screening test.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Machiavellianism (psychology)</span> Personality construct

In the field of personality psychology, Machiavellianism is the name of a personality trait construct characterized by interpersonal manipulation, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest. Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis created the construct and named it after Niccolò Machiavelli, as they used truncated and edited statements similar to his writing style to study variations in human behaviors. The construct's relation to the thinker himself is exclusively nominal. Their Mach IV test, a 20-question, Likert-scale personality survey, became the standard self-assessment tool and scale of the Machiavellianism construct. Those who score high on the scale are more likely to have a high level of manipulativeness, deceitfulness and a cynical, unemotional temperament.

References

  1. ↑ Jonason, Peter K.; Slomski, Sarah; Partyka, Jamie (February 2012). "The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way". Personality and Individual Differences. 52 (3): 449–453. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008.
  2. ↑ "Finally, people high in Machiavellianism can be described as acting in a highly exploitative and emotionally cold way when interacting with others." ---Volmer, J., Koch, I. K., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of leaders' dark triad traits: Effects on subordinates' career success and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 413-418.
  3. ↑ Christie, Richard; Geis, Florence L. (2013). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press. ISBN   978-1-4832-6060-0.[ page needed ]
  4. ↑ Drory, Amos; Gluskinos, Uri M. (February 1980). "Machiavellianism and leadership". Journal of Applied Psychology. 65 (1): 81–86. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.81.
  5. ↑ Teven, Jason J.; McCroskey, James C.; Richmond, Virginia P. (June 2006). "Communication Correlates of Perceived Machiavellianism of Supervisors: Communication Orientations and Outcomes". Communication Quarterly. 54 (2): 127–142. doi:10.1080/01463370600650829.
  6. ↑ James, Oliver (2013). Office Politics: How to Thrive in a World of Lying, Backstabbing and Dirty Tricks. Vermilion. ISBN   978-0-09-192394-5.[ page needed ]
  7. 1 2 Dahling, Jason J; Kuyumcu, Daniel; Librizzi, Erika H (2014). "Machiavellianism, unethical behavior, and well-being in organizational life". In Giacalone, Robert A; Promislo, Mark D (eds.). Handbook of Unethical Work Behavior: Implications for Individual Well-Being. pp. 183–194. doi:10.4324/9781315703848. ISBN   978-1-315-70384-8.
  8. ↑ Deluga, Ronald J (September 2001). "American presidential Machiavellianism". The Leadership Quarterly. 12 (3): 339–363. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00082-0.
  9. 1 2 Kessler, Stacey R.; Bandelli, Adam C.; Spector, Paul E.; Borman, Walter C.; Nelson, Carnot E.; Penney, Lisa M. (August 2010). "Re-Examining Machiavelli: A Three-Dimensional Model of Machiavellianism in the Workplace". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 40 (8): 1868–1896. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00643.x.
  10. ↑ Ináncsi, Tamás; Pilinszki, Attila; Paál, Tünde; Láng, András (30 November 2018). "Perceptions of close relationship through the Machiavellians´ dark glasses: Negativity, distrust, self-protection against risk and dissatisfaction". Europe's Journal of Psychology. 14 (4): 806–830. doi:10.5964/ejop.v14i4.1550. PMC   6266533 . PMID   30555587.
  11. ↑ Jonason, Peter K., Sarah Slomski, and Jamie Partyka. "The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way." Personality and individual differences 52, no. 3 (2012): 449-453.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Belschak, Frank D.; Muhammad, Rabiah S.; Den Hartog, Deanne N. (2018). "Birds of a Feather can Butt Heads: When Machiavelliani Employees Work with Machiavellian Leaders". Journal of Business Ethics. 151 (3): 613–626. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3251-2. PMC   6417390 . PMID   30956372.
  13. 1 2 3 Greenbaum, Rebecca L.; Hill, Aaron; Mawritz, Mary B.; Quade, Matthew J. (February 2017). "Employee Machiavellianism to Unethical Behavior: The Role of Abusive Supervision as a Trait Activator". Journal of Management. 43 (2): 585–609. doi:10.1177/0149206314535434.
  14. ↑ Wisse, Barbara; Sleebos, Ed (September 2016). "When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 99: 122–126. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.019.
  15. 1 2 3 Belschak, Frank D.; Den Hartog, Deanne N.; De Hoogh, Annebel H. B. (2018). "Angels and Demons: The Effect of Ethical Leadership on Machiavellian Employees' Work Behaviors". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 1082. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01082 . PMC   6031853 . PMID   30002641.
  16. ↑ Belschak, F. D., Muhammad, R. S., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2018). Birds of a feather can butt heads: When Machiavellian employees work with Machiavellian leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 613-626.
  17. ↑ Emotional manipulation in the workplace: An investigation into the indirect effects of Machiavellianism on counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs)
  18. ↑ Zhao, J., Xiao, S., Mao, J., & Liu, W. (2018). The buffering effect of Machiavellianism on the relationship between role conflict and counterproductive work behavior. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1776.
  19. ↑ LeBreton, J. M., Shiverdecker, L. K., & Grimaldi, E. M. (2018). The dark triad and workplace behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 387-414.
  20. 1 2 Gemmill, Gary R.; Heisler, W. J. (1972). "Machiavellianism as a Factor in Managerial Job Strain, Job Satisfaction, and Upward Mobility". The Academy of Management Journal. 15 (1): 51–62. JSTOR   254800. ProQuest   229597853.
  21. 1 2 Valentine, S.; Fleischman, G. (2018). "From the schoolyard to workplace: The impact of bullying on sales and business employees' Machiavellianism, job satisfaction, and perceived importance of an ethical issue". Human Resource Management. 57: 293–305. doi:10.1002/hrm.21834.
  22. 1 2 Gürlek, Mert (2 January 2021). "Shedding light on the relationships between Machiavellianism, career ambition, and unethical behavior intention". Ethics & Behavior. 31 (1): 38–59. doi:10.1080/10508422.2020.1764846. S2CID   225719181.
  23. ↑ Spurk, Daniel; Keller, Anita C.; Hirschi, Andreas (March 2016). "Do Bad Guys Get Ahead or Fall Behind? Relationships of the Dark Triad of Personality With Objective and Subjective Career Success". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 7 (2): 113–121. doi:10.1177/1948550615609735.
  24. ↑ Satornino, Cinthia B.; Allen, Alexis; Shi, Huanhuan; Bolander, Willy (March 2023). "Understanding the Performance Effects of "Dark" Salesperson Traits: Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy". Journal of Marketing. 87 (2): 298–318. doi:10.1177/00222429221113254.
  25. ↑ Ricks, James; Fraedrich, John (1999). "The Paradox of Machiavellianism: Machiavellianism May Make for Productive Sales but Poor Management Reviews". Journal of Business Ethics. 20 (3): 197–205. doi:10.1023/A:1005956311600.
  26. ↑ Jonason, Peter K.; Slomski, Sarah; Partyka, Jamie (February 2012). "The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way". Personality and Individual Differences. 52 (3): 449–453. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008.
  27. ↑ Blickle, Gerhard; Kückelhaus, Bastian P.; Kranefeld, Iris; Schütte, Nora; Genau, Hanna A.; Gansen-Ammann, Dominic-Nicolas; Wihler, Andreas (April 2020). "Political skill camouflages Machiavellianism: Career role performance and organizational misbehavior at short and long tenure". Journal of Vocational Behavior. 118: 103401. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103401. hdl: 10871/122014 . S2CID   214161864.
  28. ↑ Gruda, Dritjon; McCleskey, Jim; Khoury, Issa (April 2023). "Cause we are living in a Machiavellian world, and I am a Machiavellian major: Machiavellianism and academic major choice". Personality and Individual Differences. 205: 112096. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2023.112096. hdl: 10400.14/40205 .
  29. ↑ Volmer, J., Koch, I. K., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of leaders' dark triad traits: Effects on subordinates' career success and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 413-418.
  30. ↑ Spurk, D., Keller, A. C., & Hirschi, A. (2016). Do bad guys get ahead or fall behind? Relationships of the dark triad of personality with objective and subjective career success. Social psychological and personality science, 7(2), 113-121.
  31. ↑ Fletch, 1990
  32. ↑ Levashina, Julia; Campion, Michael A. (December 2006). "A Model of Faking Likelihood in the Employment Interview". International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 14 (4): 299–316. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00353.x.
  33. ↑ Roulin, Nicolas; Bourdage, Joshua S. (24 January 2017). "Once an Impression Manager, Always an Impression Manager? Antecedents of Honest and Deceptive Impression Management Use and Variability across Multiple Job Interviews". Frontiers in Psychology. 8: 29. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00029 . PMC   5258756 . PMID   28174546.
  34. ↑ Lopes, Joana; Fletcher, Clive (2004). "Fairness of Impression Management in Employment Interviews: A Cross-Country Study of the Role of Equity and Machiavellianism". Social Behavior and Personality. 32 (8): 747–768. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.8.747.
  35. ↑ Roulin, Nicolas; Krings, Franciska (October 2016). "When Winning is Everything: The Relationship between Competitive Worldviews and Job Applicant Faking". Applied Psychology. 65 (4): 643–670. doi:10.1111/apps.12072.
  36. ↑ Weinstein, Eugene A.; Beckhouse, Lawrence S.; Blumstein, Philip W.; Stein, Robert B. (December 1968). "Interpersonal strategies under conditions of gain or loss". Journal of Personality. 36 (4): 616–634. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1968.tb01496.x.
  37. ↑ Hogue, Mary; Levashina, Julia; Hang, Hongli (October 2013). "Will I Fake It? The Interplay of Gender, Machiavellianism, and Self-monitoring on Strategies for Honesty in Job Interviews". Journal of Business Ethics. 117 (2): 399–411. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1525-x.
  38. ↑ Greenberg, Jerald; Baron, Robert A. (2003). Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work. Prentice Hall. ISBN   978-0-13-066491-4.[ page needed ]
  39. 1 2 Pilch, Irena; Turska, Elżbieta (April 2015). "Relationships Between Machiavellianism, Organizational Culture, and Workplace Bullying: Emotional Abuse from the Target's and the Perpetrator's Perspective". Journal of Business Ethics. 128 (1): 83–93. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2081-3.
  40. ↑ Kiazad, Kohyar; Restubog, Simon Lloyd D.; Zagenczyk, Thomas J.; Kiewitz, Christian; Tang, Robert L. (August 2010). "In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors' Machiavellianism and subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior". Journal of Research in Personality. 44 (4): 512–519. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004.
  41. ↑ Pilch, I., Turska, E. Relationships Between Machiavellianism, Organizational Culture, and Workplace Bullying: Emotional Abuse from the Target’s and the Perpetrator’s Perspective. J Bus Ethics 128, 83–93 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2081-3

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.