A new study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior sheds light on the ongoing debate over whether Machiavellian tactics help or hurt leaders in the workplace. Analyzing data from over half a million participants, researchers found that Machiavellian leaders tend to create toxic environments for followers, yet are not consistently rewarded or penalized for their behavior. The results suggest that these leaders are often seen as abusive and manipulative, but their success or failure depends heavily on context.
People high in the personality trait of Machiavellianism tend to believe that others are malicious or incompetent, which leads them to use deceit and exploitation to achieve their goals. Some argue that Machiavellianism is fundamentally harmful for leadership. Others suggest that it offers a strategic advantage, especially in competitive or high-stakes environments. The new research attempts to move beyond this binary by offering a more nuanced theoretical model that considers when and how Machiavellian leaders succeed or fail.
“Much discourse on Machiavellian leadership presents one-sided perspectives,” explained study author Alexander R. Marbut, a PhD candidate at The University of Alabama. “In best practice books on leadership and among some economists, Machiavellians are presented as pragmatic realists who do what is necessary to ensure their organization or nation’s survival. In psychology and business ethics, they are presented as evil masterminds.”
“This is no surprise because they have been viewed throughout history as being one or the other. We strove to provide a balanced perspective that moves optics on the topic away from polarized, sensationalistic reasoning. Machiavellianism entails a question most leaders struggle to answer: Is it better to be feared than loved, given the vulnerability that comes with trying to be loved?”
To investigate this, Marbut and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 163 independent samples, including data from 510,925 participants. They focused on 15 leadership-related outcomes, ranging from leadership style and effectiveness to follower performance and well-being. The researchers synthesized decades of research across psychology, economics, and organizational behavior, bringing together findings that had previously been scattered or siloed. The authors also considered differences between self-reports and evaluations from peers, subordinates, and supervisors, as well as the influence of social skill and tenure.
The results showed that leaders high in Machiavellianism tend to, on average, adopt leadership styles that are seen as inauthentic, inconsiderate, and morally nonconventional. They were also less likely to develop others or their careers or articulate clear expectations for followers.
Followers of Machiavellian leaders reported significantly worse experiences across multiple domains. These leaders were strongly associated with lower-quality relationships with followers, higher levels of abusive supervision, lower follower job satisfaction, and greater burnout. They were also associated with reduced citizenship behaviors—voluntary acts that benefit others or the organization—and increased deviant behaviors, such as rule-breaking or sabotage. In one of the most striking findings, Machiavellianism explained nearly half of the variance in perceived relationship quality and more than a quarter of the variance in abusive supervision .
“On average and as indexed by multiple metrics, Machiavellians are seen as abusive and without any intention to develop or proactively lead followers, and they may even stand in the way of performance by providing directions ambiguous enough that they can take credit for wins while blaming followers for failures,” Marbut said.
Interestingly, the study found that Machiavellians were more likely to see themselves as “unethical” and inconsiderate, suggesting that they do not pretend to follow traditional norms but instead reject them outright. Their moral outlook appears to be rooted in a belief that the world is inherently competitive and dangerous, and that survival depends on anticipating betrayal and exploiting opportunities before others do.
“Contrary to popular rhetoric, they openly admit to such tactics, as well as to rejecting traditional ethics,” Marbut explained.
But Machiavellian leaders were not reliably penalized. Findings as to whether they attain leadership status, are viewed as leader-like, or are seen as effective or high-performing leaders were inconsistent. This suggests that such leaders are neither consistently promoted nor sidelined, but rather operate in a gray zone where their outcomes depend on how they manage others’ perceptions and navigate organizational politics.
“Despite the above, they are no less likely than anyone else to be seen as high in leader potential, to be placed in leadership roles, or to be seen as effective leaders by their bosses and coworkers,” Marbut said. “Contrary to existing theorizing, their reputations remain stable over time. This is why I emphasize that their success depends on the group accepting their vision: faking traditional ethics would foster cultures contrary to the very beliefs they are convinced by.”
Context played a major role in shaping the outcomes associated with Machiavellian leaders. The researchers found that tenure moderated how these leaders were perceived. Contrary to some predictions, high-tenure Machiavellians tended to be seen as “ethical”, possibly because they managed to reshape the norms of their organizations or convince others of the legitimacy of their worldviews.
Social skill also mattered. Machiavellian leaders with low self-awareness tended to be seen as more “ethical”, perhaps because they avoided drawing attention to their more cynical, nontraditional beliefs. However, highly self-aware Machiavellians were more likely to be seen as “unethical”, perhaps due to feedback and conflict making those beliefs obvious to others.
Marbut explained that socioanalysts offer two kinds of guidance: advice for people as actors and as observers. As actors, individuals should understand that Machiavellianism is a dark trait present in everyone to varying degrees. “Engaging one’s own Machiavellianism is like playing with fire: for leaders, it carries the risk of leading followers to despise you with little to show for it in the way of economic gain.” If those around you begin to seem “traitorous, foolish, or lazy,” gather information before acting—you may be right, or “you might find that your mind was playing tricks on you,” Marbut said. “You might feel that it is safer to distrust out of caution, but bear in mind that if you are wrong you might gain a reputation as a defector or abuser, which can lead the collective to turn on you (this is Dawkins’s ‘conspiracy of the doves’: acting as a hawk to ‘play it safe’ is only safe until the doves collectively swarm on you).”
As observers, Marbut continued, “people should be aware of symptoms of Machiavellianism in others and view them as ‘yellow flags.’ Look for consistent signs, not isolated incidents. The first mark to look for is cynicism: the raised eyebrow and sardonic grin; putting others down as though doing so makes them look better; hyperactive risk radars.
“The second mark to look out for is criticism of traditional virtues, although it may often be couched as pragmatism: either way, actions such as kindness, honesty, and humility are framed as being ‘weak’ because ‘it is a dog eat dog world,'” Marbut continued. “While some Machiavellians are astute at helping others take off their rose colored glasses, the worst among them are prone to cruelty and cowardice, from selling secrets to competitors to ruining intergroup relations because they can’t bring themselves to trust others. Our results show that peers and supervisors tend to not be aware of how vicious worst cases can be but that they make followers’ lives miserable: subordinate interviews may be notably helpful in separating the grain from the chaff, but only if anonymity is absolutely guaranteed.”
“If you are working under a ‘bad’ Machiavellian, get out as soon as possible: they will ruin your career and well-being. Until you can get out, keep all communication formal and work-related. Do not try to be friends with them, as they will see it as insincere and trust you less. You will never gain their approval: the most you can hope for is less disapproval.”
“It may help if you base anything you say to them on facts, data, and logic,” Marbut advised. “If they think for a moment that you are speaking idealistically, they will tune out anything else you say: they view thinking about how the world should be as unrealistic, so only talk to them about what is and what can be done about it. Lastly, do not ever let them think that you lack devotion: they will assume that you are lazy and selfish, so you do not want to give them ‘proof’ of either.”
The findings also challenge the usefulness of oversimplified labels. The researchers argue that reducing Machiavellianism to a single behavior like manipulation misses the broader psychological and behavioral patterns that define the trait. They advocate for a more comprehensive view that incorporates cynical thinking, grim and egotistic emotions, and a tendency toward aggression.
In this view, Machiavellians are not just amoral deceivers — a trait they share with psychopathic individuals — they have a coherent worldview that prioritizes self-preservation.
“A second motive for this project was to conduct a thorough review of what Machiavellianism is due to arguments that it is the same as psychopathy,” Marbut said. “The result was the conclusion that the worst Machiavellians and psychopaths pose many of the same risks: psychologically damaging abuse and criminal activity. But the former is risk-averse and unrewarding to be around, and the latter is risk-prone and fun to be around (when they want to be). Of note, my advice for dealing with Machiavellian bosses is known to backfire on psychopaths, which is why I emphasize the need to be mindful of the type of social manipulator you are dealing with.”
“If you are actually interacting with Machiavellians, you are much more likely to confuse them with paranoid or obsessive folks who likewise walk around with dark clouds over their heads, but they do so for different reasons and so pose different benefits and risks to their groups. This is why I argue that organizational scientists and practitioners should be talking about the broader spectrum of dark traits. If we don’t know how to tell them apart, how can we have any hope of dealing with them in ourselves or others?”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider. Although the meta-analysis included a large and diverse set of data, it relied heavily on subjective measures, which can introduce bias. The findings also may not apply equally across all industries, cultures, or levels of leadership. The authors note that more research is needed to understand how Machiavellianism functions in specific organizational contexts, especially in competitive fields where strategic cunning may be more accepted or rewarded.
“Most of the effects reported were highly conditional, and so the correlations noted above should be read in terms of Machiavellian leaders’ outcomes ‘on average,'” Marbut told PsyPost. “In some contexts, some Machiavellians have good relationships with their subordinates or help financial performance. This is why I emphasized for actors the phrase ‘playing with fire’ and for observers the need to ‘separate the grain from the chaff.'”
“It is not surprising that the effects of Machiavellianism, or any dark trait, would be conditional: dark traits exist for a reason, and so some “positive” outcomes should be expected. At the same time, people tend to not be aware of their own or others’ dark traits, and so it is no surprise that the average person would be poor at managing their own Machiavellianism or detecting unhealthy Machiavellianism in others.”
Looking ahead, Marbut plans to explore how to help organizations better understand, manage, and reduce the risks associated with dark personality traits.
“I have two research trajectories, both focused on dark traits generally but for now on Machiavellianism and psychopathy as those are where my expertise runs deepest,” Marbut explained. “The first is human resources oriented, focused on understanding how organizations can monitor levels of Machiavellianism and psychopathy in their workforces and alter their policies to avoid the scandals both traits are known for without missing out on the benefits of both traits that only experts on them talk about.”
“The second is people oriented, focused on how employees can be trained to recognize and manage dark traits in themselves and others. I am conducting a study now on how leaders can manage Machiavellian and psychopathic followers, and in particular whether tactics that work on one risk backfiring on the other.”
The study, “In the Service of the Prince: A Meta-Analytic Review of Machiavellian Leadership,” was authored by A. R. Marbut, P. D. Harms, and M. Credé.
