Machiavellianism in the workplace

Last updated

Machiavellianism in the workplace is a concept studied by many organizational psychologists. Conceptualized originally by Richard Christie and Florence Geis, Machiavellianism refers to a psychological trait concept where individuals behave in a cold and duplicitous manner. [1] [2] It has in recent times been adapted and applied to the context of the workplace and organizations by many writers and academics.

Contents

Oliver James wrote on the effects of Machiavellianism and other dark triad personality traits in the workplace, the others being narcissism and psychopathy. [3]

A new model of Machiavellianism based in organizational settings consists of three factors: [4]

Examples of behaviors that individuals high in Machiavellianism may do include: [5]

High Machs can exhibit high levels of charisma, and their leadership can be beneficial in some areas. [6]

The presence of Machiavellianism in an organization has been positively correlated with counterproductive workplace behaviour and workplace deviance. [4]

The origin of Machiavellianism 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. [7]

Impact on Employee Satisfaction and Well-being

Being under machiavellian leadership can negatively impact the performance or productivity inside an organization. A study shows a link between job satisfaction and level of Machiavellianism, in which the higher the level of machiavellian orientation by upper management and leaders, the higher the chance of employees experiencing lower job satisfaction. [8]

In the same study, it was found that managers with high Machiavellian behaviors also reported higher job strain, less job satisfaction, and fewer perceived opportunities for formal control in the work environment. [8]

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. [5]

Perceived actions of Machiavellianism can cause significant stress and lead to distrust among employees and leaders. [9] This can be due to the manipulative behaviors, low empathy, and self-focused motives that individuals high in Machiavellianism may exude in their workplaces. [9] 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. [9]

Bullying in the workplace is another problem that can arise from machiavellian tendencies and that can contribute to stress levels among workers. A study shows a correlation between workplace bullying experiences and Machiavellian tendencies, which usually results in lower job satisfaction among those workers being a victim of workplace bullying. [10]

Leadership

Machiavellian leadership is known to be one of the unethical and destructive types of leadership. [9]

Machiavellian behaviors may appear in the workplace due to signals being sent from leaders to their employees. [11] 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. [11] However, the followers do not have to have pre-existing high levels of Machiavellianism in the workplace. This suggests that these negative behaviors could be unintentional and are a result of employees trying to fulfill their workplace responsibilities. [11]

Additionally, high levels of Machiavellian behavior 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. [12]

Similarly, employees who are high in Machiavellianism may participate in knowledge hiding, a technique of withholding or hiding knowledge from co-workers. [13] This could then lead to damage in co-worker relations and distrust in the workplace. [13] 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. [13]

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. [14] [15] [16] Additionally, Machiavellian individuals 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. [17] [18] 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. [19] Men high in Machiavellianism were also more likely to make up information about themselves or their experiences during job interviews. [20] 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

According to Gary Namie, High Machs manipulate and exploit others to advance their perceived personal agendas and to maintain dominance over others. [21]

The following are the guiding beliefs of those high on Machiavellianism: [22]

High Machiavellians may be expected to do the following: [22]

According to previous studies there was a positive correlation between Machiavellianism and workplace bullying. Additionally, Machiavellianism predicted involvement in bullying others. [10] 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. [23] 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. [23]

Apart from these, another research showed that Machiavellianism was positively associated with subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision (an overlapping concept with workplace bullying). [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial and organizational psychology</span> Branch of psychology

Industrial and organizational psychology is the science of human behavior in the workplace and work-life interface. It is an applied discipline within psychology. Depending on the country or region of the world, 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 title for the science and profession.

Emotional intelligence (EI) is most often defined as the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions. People with high emotional intelligence can recognize their own emotions and those of others, use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, discern between different feelings and label them appropriately, and adjust 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 can include such tactics as verbal, nonverbal, psychological, and physical abuse, as well as humiliation. This type of workplace aggression is particularly difficult because, unlike the typical school bully, workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization and their society. In the majority of cases, bullying in the workplace is reported as having been done by someone who has authority over the victim. However, bullies can also be peers, and rarely subordinates.

<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.

Workplace aggression is a specific type of aggression which occurs in the workplace. Workplace aggression is any type of hostile behavior that occurs in the workplace. It can range from verbal insults and threats to physical violence, and it can occur between coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates. Common examples of workplace aggression include gossiping, bullying, intimidation, sabotage, sexual harassment, and physical violence. These behaviors can have serious consequences, including reduced productivity, increased stress, and decreased morale.

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.

Workplace deviance, in group psychology, may be described as the deliberate desire to cause harm to an organization – more specifically, a workplace. The concept has become an instrumental component in the field of organizational communication. More accurately, it can be seen as "voluntary behavior that violates institutionalized norms and in doing so threatens the well-being of the organization".

Despite a large body of positive psychological research into the relationship between happiness and productivity, happiness at work has traditionally been seen as a potential by-product of positive outcomes at work, rather than a pathway to business success. Happiness in the workplace is usually dependent on the work environment. During the past two decades, maintaining a level of happiness at work has become more significant and relevant due to the intensification of work caused by economic uncertainty and increase in competition. Nowadays, happiness is viewed by a growing number of scholars and senior executives as one of the major sources of positive outcomes in the workplace. In fact, companies with higher than average employee happiness exhibit better financial performance and customer satisfaction. It is thus beneficial for companies to create and maintain positive work environments and leadership that will contribute to the happiness of their employees.

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is employee behavior that goes against the legitimate interests of an organization. These behaviors can harm organizations or people in organizations including employees and clients, customers, or patients. 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.

Social undermining is the expression of negative emotions directed towards a particular person or negative evaluations of the person as a way to prevent the person from achieving their goals.

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".

Positive psychology is defined as a method of building on what is good and what is already working instead of attempting to stimulate improvement by focusing on the weak links in an individual, a group, or in this case, a company. Implementing positive psychology in the workplace means creating an environment that is more enjoyable, productive, and values individual employees. This also means creating a work schedule that does not lead to emotional and physical distress.

A job attitude is a set of evaluations of one's job that constitute one's feelings toward, beliefs about, and attachment to one's job. Overall job attitude can be conceptualized in two ways. Either as affective job satisfaction that constitutes a general or global subjective feeling about a job, or as a composite of objective cognitive assessments of specific job facets, such as pay, conditions, opportunities and other aspects of a particular job. Employees evaluate their advancement opportunities by observing their job, their occupation, and their employer.

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 an antecedent to negative subordinate workplace outcome." "Workplace violence has combination of situational and personal factors". The study that was conducted looked at 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">Machiavellianism (psychology)</span> Psychological trait

In the field of personality psychology, Machiavellianism is a personality trait centered on manipulativeness, callousness, an indifference to morality, and a strategic focus on self interest. Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence Geis named the trait after Niccolò Machiavelli, as they used edited and truncated statements inspired by his works to study variations in human behaviors. 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 deceitfulness and a cynical, unempathetic temperament.

References

  1. ↑ Christie, Richard; Geis, Florence L. (2013-10-22). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press. ISBN   9781483260600.
  2. ↑ Calhoon, Richard P. (1969-06-01). "Niccolo Machiavelli and the Twentieth Century Administrator". Academy of Management Journal . 12 (2): 205–212. doi:10.5465/254816. ISSN   0001-4273.
  3. ↑ James O Office Politics: How to Thrive in a World of Lying, Backstabbing and Dirty Tricks (2013)
  4. 1 2 Kessler, SR; Bandeiii, AC; Spector, PE; Borman, WC; Nelson, CE; and Penney, LM 2010. Reexamining Machiavelli: A three dimensional model of Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1868–1896
  5. 1 2 Dahling, Jason J.; & Kuyumcu, Daniel (January 2012). "Machiavellianism, unethical behavior, and well-being in organizational life".
  6. ↑ "ScienceDirect". The Leadership Quarterly. 12 (3): 339–363. September 2001. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00082-0.
  7. ↑ Ináncsi, Tamás; Pilinszki, Attila; Paál, Tünde; Láng, András (2018-11-30). "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. ISSN   1841-0413. PMC   6266533 . PMID   30555587.
  8. 1 2 Gemmill, G. R.; & Heisler, W. J. (1972). "Machiavellianism as a factor in managerial job strain, job satisfaction, and upward mobility". Academy of Management Journal. 15 (1): 51–62. doi:10.2307/254800. JSTOR   254800.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 1 2 3 Greenbuam, Rebecca L.; Hill, Aaron; Mawritz, Mary B.; Quade, Matthew J. (July 2016). "Employee Machiavellianism to Unethical Behavior". Journal of Management. 43 (2): 585–609. doi:10.1177/0149206314535434. ISSN   0149-2063. S2CID   143801443.
  12. ↑ Wisse, Barbara; Sleebos, Ed (2016). "When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams". Personality and Individual Differences. 99: 122–126. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.019. ISSN   0191-8869. S2CID   56051837.
  13. 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 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   6031853 . PMID   30002641.
  14. ↑ Fletch, 1990
  15. ↑ Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2006). A model of faking likelihood in the employment interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(4), 299-316.
  16. ↑ Roulin, N., & Bourdage, J. S. (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.
  17. ↑ Lopes, J., & Fletcher, C. (2004). Fairness of impression management in employment interviews: A cross-country study of the role of equity and Machiavellianism. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 32(8), 747-768
  18. ↑ Roulin, N., & Krings, F. (2016). When Winning is Everything: The Relationship between Competitive Worldviews and Job Applicant Faking. Applied Psychology, 65(4), 643-670.
  19. ↑ Weinstein, E. A., Beckhouse, L. S., Blumstein, P. W., & Stein, R. B. (1968). Interpersonal strategies under conditions of gain or loss1. Journal of Personality, 36(4), 616-634.
  20. ↑ Hogue, M., Levashina, J., & Hang, H. (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.
  21. ↑ Namie, G. (2006). Why Bullies Bully? A Complete Explanation.
  22. 1 2 Greenberg J, Baron RA Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work (2003)
  23. 1 2 Irena Pilch, Elżbieta Turska Journal of Business Ethics February 2014 Relationships Between Machiavellianism, Organizational Culture, and Workplace Bullying: Emotional Abuse from the Target’s and the Perpetrator’s Perspective
  24. ↑ Kohyar Kiazada, Simon Lloyd D. Restubog, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Christian Kiewitz, Robert L. Tang, -In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior

Further reading

Books

Academic papers

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.