1

Relationship Between Machiavellianism Trait and Job Performance in Employees

Shruti C. Kharade (2237428)

Department of Psychology, CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
MPS 111: Academic Writing and Research
Dr. Aditi Ashok Arur
November 5, 2022
 2

Relationship Between Machiavellianism Trait and Job Performance in Employees

Abstract

Machiavellianism, a dark triad personality trait has been widely studied in the

organizational settings. The current review focuses on the presence of Machiavellianism in

employees and its relation to employee work behaviours and job performance. A systematic

search of databases like Google Scholar, EBSCO, APA, Elsevier, ProQuest Central and

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy was conducted and 29 studies were screened for

eligibility according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results of the review suggests

that the relationship between the personality trait of Machiavellianism in employees and job

performance is a complex one, including the moderating role of transformational leadership

style. While the reviewed studies demonstrated the importance of transformational leadership

style in the relationship between Machiavellianism personality trait and job performance in

employees; future studies should consider other unexplored components of job performance

like task performance and the role of leadership styles other than transformational.

Introduction

Christie and Geis coined the term Machiavellianism to describe personality tendencies

of an individual to be manipulative and exploitative of others in the process of achieving

personal goals (Christie & Geis, 2013). The construct emerges from the Niccolo

Machiavelli’s political philosophy in his treatise The Prince (Christie & Geis, 2013). In The

Prince Machiavelli contradicts the prior historical view of the renaissance, which proposed

that the rulers should be virtuous leaders and, instead suggests that the major objective of the

political rulers is to obtain power (Nederman, 2022). Thus, Christie and Geis (2013) drew

parallels between Machiavelli’s political ideology and interpersonal behaviour in daily social

situations.
 3

Christie & Geis (2013) suggest that an important differentiating factor between

individuals high and low in Machiavellianism is emotional attachment. Owing to their lack of

emotional attachment, individuals high on Machiavellianism do not fare well in interpersonal

relationships (Ináncsi et al., 2015). Another setting where the Machiavellian relationship

dynamics has been widely studied is the organization. For instance, research shows that

Machiavellian supervisors are likely to be abusive towards their work teams (Wisse &

Sleebos, 2016). This abusive behaviour of Machiavellian supervisors is also related to the

adverse effects on employees in terms of employee’s work engagement (Den Hartog &

Belschak, 2012) and emotional well-being (Stradovnik & Stare, 2018).

Turning the focus to the presence of this trait in employees, literature has shown that

Machiavellian employees have negative reactions to the crucial process of organizational

change (Belschak et al., 2020), may concentrate on achieving their bottom-line goals at the

expense of discrediting organisational citizenship behaviour towards co-workers (Eissa et al.,

2019) and may even engage in workplace bullying behaviours (Valentine & Fleischman,

2018). The relationship between Machiavellianism in employees and work performance is a

complex one; a study suggests that organizational constraints moderate the relationship

between Machiavellianism and task performance, such that, when the work constraints are

high, Machiavellian employees flourish in achieving personal task goals by unfair means

(Kuyumcu & Dahling, 2014). A study by Smith & Webster (2017) suggests that individuals

high in Machiavellianism may also be more likely to receive higher subjective ratings of job

performance from their supervisors through the expression of political skill. Although,

employees high on Machiavellianism can successfully mask their intentions and receive high

performance ratings, they do not avoid engaging in counterproductive work behaviours and

extracting work resources (Blickle et al., 2020). Thus, despite their higher performance

ratings, these employees pose as adverse challenges to the organization in the long run.
 4

To tackle these organizationally undesirable consequences of employees high on

Machiavellianism, studies have been conducted to analyse the relation between

transformational leadership style and employee Machiavellian behaviours ( e.g. Den Hartog

& Belschak, 2012). Transformational leadership involves directing the follower away from

individualized needs to performing organizational duties through charisma, inspiration,

intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Bass, 1999). Transformational

leadership may help promote organizational needs by encouraging employees to go beyond

self-interest towards the collective good of the organization (Bass, 1999). Since many studies

have found transformational leadership to be associated with organizational citizenship

behaviour (Udin, 2020), studies investigating the relationship between transformational

leadership and Machiavellian employees have mainly focused on organizational citizenship

behaviour (e.g. Belschak et al., 2015). Following this trend, even a study by Koo & Lee

(2022) showed that transformational leadership can encourage Machiavellian employees to

engage in organizational citizenship behaviours. Another study by Belschak et al. (2018)

found that transformational leadership moderates the relationship between employee

Machiavellianism and employee’s antisocial behaviour, suggesting that Machiavellian

employees exposed to transformational leadership are less likely to engage in antisocial

actions. Thus, the relation between transformational leadership and Machiavellian

employee’s organizational citizenship and counterproductive behaviours have been explored.

Nevertheless, there is still little known about the relation between transformational leadership

and Machiavellian employee’s task performance, which forms the third component of job

performance along with citizenship and counterproductive behaviours (Rotundo & Sackett,

2002). Task performance includes behaviours which contribute to the technical core of the

job (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) and hence, form an important aspect of job performance.

Moreover, as mentioned before, the relationship between Machiavellianism and task

 5

performance in employees is a complex one, with moderating effects of work environment

(Kuyumcu & Dahling, 2014). Even the leadership style which the supervisor adopts becomes

an important feature of the work environment and thus, future studies should explore the

relationship between transformational leadership, employee Machiavellianism and task

performance across organizations and tasks.

Methods

Literature Search

Databases like Google Scholar, EBSCO, APA, Elsevier, ProQuest Central and

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy were searched for relevant journal articles and web

pages in the timespan of 2010-2022 (with the exception of classic studies, which were

included despite of their publication year). Databases were searched for English language

articles using keywords like Machiavellianism, employees, transformational leadership, job

performance, organizational commitment and counterproductive behaviours. This search

yielded 29 potentially relevant studies on the research area of Machiavellianism in employees

and the role of leadership style. Initially, only the titles and abstracts of the articles were

screened to identify relevant research articles for inclusion. Reference lists of existing articles

were also searched for additional relevant articles.

Inclusion Criteria

All English language studies on the role of transformational leadership in employee’s

Machiavellianism were considered for inclusion.

Exclusion Criteria

According to the aim of the systematic review, Machiavellianism expressed in

settings other than the organization were excluded. An initial literature screening, revealed
 6

that there were studies conducted on other leadership styles like transactional leadership and

Machiavellian behaviours in employees. These studies were excluded from the review. Also,

the review excluded studies in journals having a low impact factor.

Results
Figure 1
Flowchart Explaining the Methodology of Literature Search

Note. The flowchart has been formed on the basis of the PRISMA guidelines given by Moher
et al. (2009)
Discussion

Overall the literature review covered the role of supervisory leadership style,

specifically the transformational leadership style in the relationship between

Machiavellianism in employees and the behaviours they exhibit in the workplace. As

opposed to Greenbaum et al. (2016) study which explores the unethical or Machiavellian

behaviours and abusive supervisory style through the lens of the trait activation theory, the
 7

current systematic review includes the studies which use the trait activation theory to

investigate the role of transformational or ethical supervisory style on Machiavellian

behaviours. The following were the two major themes identified through the review

The Role of the Organizational Environment in the Relationship Between Machiavellianism

and Job Performance of Employees

Tett and Burnett’s (2003) trait activation theory suggests that in order to understand

personality-job performance interactions, situational features like job demands, constraints,

releasers, distractors and facilitators should be considered. In line with this, even the current

study reviewed articles discussing the role of organizational factors, specifically the

transformational leadership style in the relationship between the personality trait of

Machiavellianism in employees and their work behaviours.

Transformational Leadership and Job Performance in Machiavellian Employees

According to Rotundo & Sackett (2002), job performance consists of three

components: task performance, organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive

work behaviours. The current review covers articles discussing the relation between

transformational leadership style and organizational citizenship and counterproductive work

behaviours in Machiavellian employees.

In summary, this systematic literature review has identified the role of

transformational leadership style in relationship between Machiavellian employees and their

work behaviours. Future research can aim towards exploring the relation of transformational

leadership and task performance (which is an unexplored component of job performance) in

Machiavellian employees. Moreover, future research can focus on the role of leadership style

other than transformational and its relation to Machiavellian behaviours in employees.

Conclusion
 8

The review conveys that both, the personality trait of the employees in the

organization and the leadership style of the supervisor is of crucial importance to efficient

organizational functioning. As the review suggests, the leadership style determines whether

employees with Machiavellianism personality trait would translate their attitudes to

counterproductive behaviours. Another important takeaway is that companies should include

measures of Machiavellianism in their personnel selection procedures to avoid future costs to

organizational health.

Limitations

The current review did not take into account leadership styles other than

transformational leadership like transactional leadership style of the supervisor and its

relation with employee behaviours. Moreover, the review consisted of studies carried out

mainly in western corporate organizations; thus, the relationship between leadership styles,

Machiavellian trait in employees and work performance was not explored in work spaces like

educational institutes, NGOs, government bodies. Also, the studies in Western organizational

settings were considered, the review had considered only a few Eastern organizational

studies. Future studies should take into account the above limitations.
 9

References

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in Transformational

leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.

https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410

Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2018). Angels and demons: The

effect of ethical leadership on machiavellian employees’ work behaviors. Frontiers in

Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01082

Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Kalshoven, K. (2015). Leading Machiavellians.

Journal of Management, 41(7), 1934–1956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313484513

Belschak, F. D., Jacobs, G., Giessner, S. R., Horton, K. E., & Bayerl, P. S. (2020). When the

going gets tough: Employee reactions to large‐scale organizational change and the role

of employee machiavellianism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(9), 830–850.

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2478

Blickle, G., Kückelhaus, B. P., Kranefeld, I., Schütte, N., Genau, H. A., Gansen-Ammann,

D.-N., & Wihler, A. (2020). Political skill camouflages machiavellianism: Career role

performance and organizational misbehavior at short and long tenure. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 118, 103401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103401

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance:

The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3

Christie, R. (2013, October 22). Studies in machiavellianism. Google Books. Retrieved

November 5, 2022, from

 10

https://books.google.com/books/about/Studies_in_Machiavellianism.html?id=d5tGBQ

AAQBAJ

Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work engagement and machiavellianism in the

ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 35–47.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4

Eissa, G., Wyland, R., Lester, S. W., & Gupta, R. (2019). Winning at all costs: An

exploration of bottom‐line mentality, Machiavellianism, and organisational citizenship

behaviour. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(3), 469–489.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12241

Ináncsi, T., Láng, A., & Bereczkei, T. (2015). Machiavellianism and adult attachment in

general interpersonal relationships and close relationships. Europe’s Journal of

Psychology, 11(1), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v11i1.801

Koo, B., & Lee, E.-S. (2022). The taming of machiavellians: Differentiated transformational

leadership effects on Machiavellians’ organizational commitment and Citizenship

Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(1), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-

021-04788-2

Kuyumcu, D., & Dahling, J. J. (2013). Constraints for some, opportunities for others?

interactive and indirect effects of Machiavellianism and organizational constraints on

task performance ratings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 301–310.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9314-9
 11

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for

systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The Prisma statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Nederman, C. (2019, May 28). Niccolò Machiavelli. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved November 5, 2022, from

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/machiavelli/

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and

counterproductive performance to global ratings of Job Performance: A policy-

capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66–80.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66

Smith, M. B., & Webster, B. D. (2017). A moderated mediation model of Machiavellianism,

social undermining, political skill, and supervisor-rated job performance. Personality

and Individual Differences, 104, 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.010

Stradovnik, K., & Stare, J. (2018). Correlation between Machiavellian leadership and

emotional exhaustion of employees. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

39(8), 1037–1050. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-06-2018-0232

Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2017). From 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(1), 293–

305. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21834

Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power

strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work

 12

teams. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 122–126.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.019