Machiavellianism, unethical behavior, and well-being in organizational life

Full text

12
MACHIAVELLIANISM, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR,
AND WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE
Ja S o n J. Da h L i n G , Da n i e L ku y u M c u , a n D er i k a h. Li b r i z z i
At this point one may note that men must be either pampered or annihilated.
They avenge light offenses; they cannot avenge severe ones; hence,
the harm one does to a man must be such as to obviate any fear of revenge.
(Machiavelli, 1513/1981, p. 16)
Machiavellianism is an individual difference that speaks to having a cynical worldview, a will-
ingness to behave unethically, and a repertoire of manipulative tactics that can be used to secure
power and gains for oneself (Christie and Geis, 1970). As the preceding quote from Niccolo
Machiavelli’s The Prince illustrates, a Machiavellian employee can be a considerable threat
to the well-being of the people around him or her, and the problems created by Machiavellian
employees can have far-ranging consequences. In this chapter, we will provide a brief overview
of Machiavellian personality, summarize the types of unethical behaviors that highly Machiavel-
lian people commit in the workplace, and explore how Machiavellian tactics might detract from
well-being throughout the organization. Although the effects of Machiavellian tactics on targeted
victims are well-established, we suggest that Machiavellian behavior can harm the broader work-
group context and, paradoxically, the Machiavellian perpetrator as well. We conclude with some
practical suggestions for how Machiavellian employees might be identified and managed in the
interest of preventing them from harming others and themselves.
MACHIAVELLIAN PERSONALITY: ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS
The concept of Machiavellianism originated in the writing of Niccolo Machiavelli, a political
figure in sixteenth-century Florence, Italy. Machiavelli’s most enduring work, The Prince, was
written during the first year of an exile from politics in 1513; Florence had been conquered by the
Medici family in 1512, and in the wake of this defeat, Machiavelli was arrested for conspiracy,
tortured, stripped of his office, and banished from home (de Grazia, 1989). The Prince, which
was addressed to Lorenzo de’ Medici, provided a frank body of advice on ruling others that was
intended to showcase Machiavelli’s experience and advocate for the restoration of his political
appointments. The openly amoral counsel that Machiavelli gave in The Prince remains deeply
influential to managers, psychologists, and political scientists nearly 500 years after its original
distribution.
The concept of Machiavellianism as a personality variable was first described by Christie and
Geis (1970), who used concepts from The Prince and a later work by Machiavelli, The Discourses
on Livy, as a starting point for describing people with a Machiavellian disposition. As Christie
(1970) explained, people high in Machiavellianism tend to have three key characteristics inferred
183

184 DAHLING, KUYUMCU, AND LIBRIZZI
from Machiavelli’s writing. First, they adopt a cynical view of the world and other people, expect-
ing that each person is invested solely in his or her own self-interests. Second, they are willing to
utilize manipulative tactics to influence others and secure desired outcomes. Third, they are quite
willing to depart from ethical standards when unethical behavior provides a necessary advantage
over others. To this end, Machiavellianism entails a freedom from ethical consideration rather
than a propensity to always behave unethically. More recent research on Machiavellianism has
elaborated on these ideas, pointing out that Machiavellian people behave this way predominantly
out of a motivation to secure extrinsic achievements, rewards, status, and power over other people
(Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy, 2009; McHoskey, 1999; Stewart and Stewart, 2006).
Consistent with this research, Machiavellianism is best considered a stable motivational ori-
entation, and it is important to clarify what Machiavellianism does not involve before proceeding
further. First, Machiavellianism implies only a desire to manipulate, not necessarily a particular
ability to exercise manipulative tactics effectively. Machiavellianism is distinct from traits like
emotional intelligence, cognitive ability, and social skills (e.g., Austin et al., 2007; Dahling,
Whitaker, and Levy, 2009; Jones and Paulhus, 2009) that facilitate effective manipulation, so it
is important to recognize that Machiavellians are motivated to manipulate, but may not be skilled
at manipulation by default. Second, Machiavellianism is related to, but distinct from, psychologi-
cal disorders such as clinical psychopathy and narcissism (e.g., Paulhus and Williams, 2002).
Machiavellian behavior is consequently present in the population of everyday working adults
and is, unfortunately, a common experience in many organizations, which may have important
consequences for employees’ well-being.
MACHIAVELLIANISM AND UNETHICAL WORKPLACE BEHAVIORS
Given their propensity to behave amorally and manipulate others, it is not surprising that Ma-
chiavellian employees commit a wide variety of unethical, counterproductive behaviors at work
(e.g., Granitz, 2003; Gunnthorsdottir, McCabe, and Smith, 2002; Hegarty and Sims, 1979; Tang
and Chen, 2007). Machiavellians will go to great lengths to get ahead of others, and likewise,
they readily engage in interpersonal deviance to achieve these ends. For example, O’Fallon and
Butterfield (2005) reviewed the empirical literature on ethical decision-making from 1996 to
2003 and found that Machiavellianism was consistently and negatively linked to ethical decision
making, a trend reflected in large bodies of research on stealing, lying, sabotage, and cheating
committed by Machiavellian employees.
Theft
Research illustrates that Machiavellians are readily willing to steal, even within trusting rela-
tionships. Harrell and Hartnagel (1976) found, for example, that Machiavellians stole from both
trusting and distrustful employers. Their study allowed both high- and low-Machiavellians to
steal in simulated worker–supervisor situations. In one condition, the confederate supervisor was
blatantly untrusting of the participant worker and would regularly monitor his or her behavior.
In another condition, the confederate supervisor was trustful of the worker and disclosed that he
or she would not be monitoring the worker’s behavior. Most of the participants stole from the
untrusting supervisor, but only the highly Machiavellian participants were more likely to steal
from the trusting supervisor. Moreover, they also stole in greater quantities across both conditions
when compared to participants with low Machiavellianism. Highly Machiavellian participants
also tried to hide their theft and even denied it when interrogated by the distrustful supervisor. In

UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR, AND WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE 185
a more recent study, Machiavellians were found to be unlikely to reciprocate trust when it was
extended to them in a negotiation, and they generally had no qualms about using morally question-
able tactics to achieve their goals and take most of the winnings for themselves (Gunnthorsdottir,
McCabe, and Smith, 2002).
Machiavellians are also willing to steal intangible knowledge resources from others. Winter,
Stylianou, and Giacalone (2004) found that Machiavellians were willing to ignore a wide range
of intellectual property rights; highly Machiavellian employees endorsed behaviors such as taking
confidential records from work and using proprietary system knowledge from one employer to
re-create a product or service for another employer. They also found that Machiavellian employees
were more willing to violate the privacy of coworkers by accessing personal data without permis-
sion and reading communications that were meant to be private. Thus, Machiavellian employees
seem motivated to steal both tangible resources and intangible information from others.
Lying and Deceit
Lying is another unethical tactic employed by Machiavellians, who tend to make more believ-
able liars (Geis and Moon, 1981; Janisse and Bradley, 1980). For example, Ross and Robertson
(2000) found that Machiavellians were inclined to lie overtly and to take advantage of ambiguity
in ethical guidelines to deceive others. McLeod and Genereux (2008) clarified that Machiavellians
typically lie only in circumstances that will benefit them, and not for reasons of altruism or social
acceptance (e.g., to show kindness to others with a “white lie”). They identified Machiavellian-
ism as one of the key predictors of one’s propensity to condone as well as engage in self-gain or
conflict-avoidance lies.
Sabotage
Machiavellians are also known to engage in acts of sabotage in the workplace. For example, people
who are high in both Machiavellianism and hostility tend to justify acts of sabotage more so than
individuals who are neither hostile nor Machiavellian (Giacalone and Knouse, 1990). Similarly,
McLeod and Genereux (2008) predicted that Machiavellians would be prone to justifying acts
of sabotage because of their self-focused behavior. Their results indicated that Machiavellianism
coupled with hostility allowed the individual to justify profit sabotage (e.g., providing misleading
information about revenue), as well as information sabotage (e.g., spreading hurtful rumors). The
authors explained that a hostile attitude can heighten a Machiavellian disposition and promote
corrupt actions. Further, Machiavellians are most likely to engage in corrupt strategies if they
are not likely to be caught and if the potential gains are to their benefit (Giacalone and Knouse,
1990; Shlenker, 1980).
Cheating
Machiavellians typically show little interest in conforming to organizational rules that are designed
to promote fairness and ethical behavior. For example, in a laboratory experiment, Hegarty and
Sims (1979) found that Machiavellians would be more likely to pay mock purchasing agents
illicit bonuses in order to increase sales. In a role-play experiment on consumer cheating on ser-
vice guarantees, Wirtz and Kum (2004) found that highly Machiavellian participants were more
likely to cheat on service guarantees than participants with low Machiavellianism. Furthermore,
Machiavellians are more accepting of active academic cheating (e.g., copying another student’s

186 DAHLING, KUYUMCU, AND LIBRIZZI
test), as well as passive cheating (e.g., remaining silent when a bill is miscalculated in their favor;
Bloodgood, Turnley, and Mudrack, 2010). Bloodgood, Turnley, and Mudrack (2010) also examined
the effect that an ethics course would have on attitudes toward these types of cheating and found
that the attitudes of highly Machiavellian participants toward passive cheating were unchanged
after receiving the ethics training. The implications of this finding are that Machiavellians may
indeed be immune to such ethics instruction.
Bass, Barnett, and Brown (1999) identified several relationships between Machiavellianism and
ethical orientations that explain why Machiavellians tend to employ these unethical tactics. For
example, they found associations between Machiavellianism and relativism, which they defined
as the degree to which one accepts or disregards universal moral principles when making deci-
sions (Forsyth, 1980). They also suggested that Machiavellianism is inversely related to idealism,
which refers to a tendency to seek balanced and favorable outcomes for all parties (Forsyth, 1980).
Bass, Barnett, and Brown (1999) also confirmed that Machiavellians are less inclined to support
social rules and follow authority.
Given all of these findings concerning theft, lying, sabotage, and cheating, it is not surpris-
ing that Machiavellianism is one of the strongest trait predictors of unethical behavior in many
contexts (Jones and Kavanagh, 1996). Unfortunately, these Machiavellian behaviors can pose a
considerable risk to the well-being of organizational members in many respects.
EFFECTS OF MACHIAVELLIAN BEHAVIOR ON WELL-BEING
We have given evidence that Machiavellian behaviors are characteristically unethical and manipu-
lative; here, we suggest that the nature of these behaviors is an important determinant of well-
being in the workplace. Consistent with Giacalone and Promislo (2010), we define well-being in
terms of both subjective elements (e.g., satisfaction and psychological appraisals of life events)
and objective elements (e.g., physiological wellness, stress, and illness). From this perspective,
well-being involves being satisfied with one’s work and nonwork circumstances, experiencing
positive emotional states, and being healthy in the sense of freedom from psychological and
physiological illnesses.
Given that the unethical acts committed by Machiavellians can include a wide range of behaviors
(e.g., stealing, lying, and cheating), it seems logical that Machiavellianism has a multidimensional
effect on well-being, affecting not only the targets or victims of the behaviors but also work teams
and the organization in a much more general sense (ibid.). Interestingly, because Machiavellianism
is a personality construct, the perpetrator (i.e., the Machiavellian) should also experience significant
detrimental effects on his/her own well-being resulting from this innate, amoral orientation and
the actual execution of unethical acts.
Unethical Behavior and the Well-Being of Machiavellian Employees
Although the effects of Machiavellian behaviors on others are well-established, less research has
considered how the well-being of Machiavellians is impacted by their own unethical behavior.
Moreover, much of the existing research on this topic shows inconsistent results, which may reflect
differences in job type, organizational setting, or the level of career success among Machiavel-
lian individuals (Jones and Paulhus, 2009). Nevertheless, some emergent trends in the literature
suggest that Machiavellian employees may suffer more than they benefit from their orientation
toward others with respect to lower satisfaction, higher anxiety, and compromised psychological
well-being.

UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR, AND WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE 187
Job and Career Satisfaction
Research has shown that Machiavellianism is associated with higher levels of job strain and lower
levels of self-reported satisfaction with both current jobs and overall career progress (Corzine,
Buntzman, and Busch, 1999; Fehr, Samsom, and Paulhus, 1992; Gemmill and Heisler, 1972; Jones
and Paulhus, 2009). For example, Gable and Topol (1988) found significant negative relation-
ships between Machiavellianism and six different facets of job satisfaction (i.e., index of total job
satisfaction, satisfaction with feedback and freedom, satisfaction with closure, satisfaction with
variety, general job satisfaction, and satisfaction with career). Highly Machiavellian employees are
thought to be less satisfied for a variety of reasons, such as their extrinsically oriented motivation
system (McHoskey, 1999), their tendency to engage themselves in hostile and stressful situations
(Gemmill and Heisler, 1972), or the worry that their careers have plateaued (Corzine, Buntzman,
and Busch, 1999). A consequence of this perennial dissatisfaction is that Machiavellians are
prone to frequent turnover from jobs in the search for more favorable employment circumstances
(Wilson, Near, and Miller, 1996), which reduces their likelihood of becoming established and
successful in a role.
Anxiety
In their review of the literature on Machiavellianism from 1971 to 1987, Fehr, Samson, and Paulhus
(1992) found that Machiavellianism was consistently associated with anxiety. For example, Nigro
and Galli (1985) illustrated that Machiavellianism was positively associated with both trait and
state anxiety, which suggests that these individuals are not only inherently more anxious but are
also more likely to experience anxiety when presented with psychologically stressful situations.
The anxious feelings that highly Machiavellian people report may be related to their subjective
reports of being envied by coworkers and their propensity to exhibit symptoms of paranoia and
distrust of others (Vecchio, 2005).
Psychological Well-Being and Emotional Experiences
In terms of emotional well-being, Machiavellians tend to be less empathetic toward others and show
symptoms that are broadly consistent with alexithymia, a sense of disconnectedness with respect
to one’s own emotions (Andrew, Cooke, and Muncer, 2008; Wastell and Booth, 2003). Research
also indicates a negative relationship between Machiavellianism and self-esteem, which may be
related to research showing that Machiavellianism is distinct from other traits such as emotional
intelligence, cognitive, and social skills (Austin et al., 2007; Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy, 2009;
Jones and Paulhus, 2009; McHoskey et al., 1999). Machiavellianism has also been linked to low
guilt-proneness, suggesting that although Machiavellians are consciously aware of their unethical
behaviors and actions, they do not commonly express remorse for them (Wastell and Booth, 2003).
Interestingly, it seems as if Machiavellians are aware of both their unethical tendencies and the
effects of these behaviors on their own well-being. For example, McHoskey et al. (1999) found
that Machiavellianism was negatively associated with self-reports of subjective well-being.
An initial analysis of the relationship between Machiavellianism and the propensity to engage
in unethical behaviors may lead one to believe that Machiavellianism is synonymous with other
well-established personality disorders. It is important to understand that although Machiavellianism
may overlap with these socially aversive personalities, such as narcissism and psychopathy, it is
a distinct construct of psychopathology (Paulhus and Williams, 2002). For example, research has

188 DAHLING, KUYUMCU, AND LIBRIZZI
demonstrated that Machiavellians do not significantly differ from non-Machiavellians in their level
of neuroticism, psychoticism, or occupational, home, health, and emotional adjustment (Skinner,
1982). Similarly, LaTorre and McLeoad (1978) found no clear link between Machiavellianism and
depression. Together, these findings suggest that Machiavellians can be generally psychologically
stable individuals who nevertheless may be dissatisfied with their accomplishments, prone to high
anxiety, and oftentimes disconnected from their emotions in ways that greatly compromise their
overall well-being.
Machiavellianism and Well-Being Among Dyadic Partners
As previously noted, Machiavellians behave unethically when such actions can advance their
own interests (Christie and Geis, 1970). Not surprisingly, the intended targets of these unethical
behaviors tend to suffer lower well-being, and the majority of Machiavellianism research has
focused on documenting these consequences in studies of dyadic interactions.
For example, some of the most compelling organizational research on the effects of Machiavel-
lian behaviors has focused on supervisor–subordinate dyads. Employee perceptions of supervisor
Machiavellianism negatively correlate with employee perceptions of supervisor credibility, sub-
ordinate motivation, and subordinate job satisfaction (Teven, McCroskey, and Richmond, 2006).
Research has also demonstrated that supervisor Machiavellianism is positively associated with
subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision, which detracts from psychological well-being
and enhances anxiety among the victims of such acts (Hobman et al., 2009; Kiazed et al., 2010).
These results suggest that Machiavellian behaviors exhibited by individuals in power positions
may be especially devastating to the well-being of their respective subordinates. Conversely, sub-
ordinate Machiavellianism has been associated with lower levels of supervisor satisfaction (Walter,
Anderson, and Martin, 2005). Together, these findings indicate that Machiavellianism, whether
exhibited upward by the subordinate or downward by the supervisor, has a detrimental influence
on the well-being of the other party. Further, the detrimental effects of Machiavellianism are also
seen between peers at the same hierarchical level. For example, O’Hair and Cody (1987) found
that Machiavellians utilized cynical and deceitful distributive tactics in their social interactions
with same-status peers to strategically build social obligations for the peers to reciprocate with
favors and loyalty.
Machiavellianism and Well-Being Detriments in Workgroups
Less research has expanded beyond dyadic relationships to consider the effects of Machiavellian-
ism in teams and social networks, and the existing research in this area is somewhat inconsistent.
For example, some findings conclude that young Machiavellians are generally well-liked by peers
and display social skills similar to those of their non-Machiavellian counterparts (Hawley, 2003).
Other reports have found negative associations with social interest and prosocial tendencies;
similarly, Machiavellianism has been positively linked to antisocial behaviors and several facets
of social alienation that might compromise the ability of a Machiavellian employee to influence
his or her work group (McHoskey, 1999).
The differences seen in this literature can be explained in light of the intentions that underlie
the social interactions of Machiavellian employees. As previously mentioned, Machiavellians
utilize manipulative tactics to influence others in order to secure a desired outcome. In some cases,
Machiavellians may find it more beneficial to utilize integrative tactics, such as flattery, to achieve
their goals, which results in their being judged as socially competent and well-liked by those who

UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR, AND WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE 189
are targeted by such flattery (O’Hair and Cody, 1987). Machiavellian employees are also known
to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors that can result in favorable social impressions,
but they only express these behaviors for impression management purposes (Becker and O’Hair,
2007). Conversely, the antisocial, unethical, and disruptive behaviors exhibited by Machiavellians
in circumstances when it is to their advantage to do so may explain the more negative ratings of
social skill and competence given to Machiavellians in some research (McHoskey, 1999; O’Hair
and Cody, 1987).
Despite this mixed literature, we can reasonably infer that any constructive social behavior
exhibited by Machiavellian employees is a consequence of self-interest, and highly Machiavellian
employees cannot be counted on to have genuinely prosocial motives or to demonstrate commit-
ment when others need their help with no benefits to offer in exchange (Becker and O’Hair, 2007;
Wilson, Near, and Miller, 1996). Within the context of workplace social networks, we expect that
Machiavellian employees detract from social relationships in several ways. First, Machiavellian
employees are unlikely to share information or resources (Liu, 2008), and they are prone to seek
to maintain positions of strategic power as boundary spanners between groups that would benefit
from greater social exchanges (e.g., Borgatti and Foster, 2003). Second, Machiavellian unethical
behaviors should prevent the development of identification-based trust between people who can
improve the quality of social relationships and work in organizations (Mayer, Davis, and Schoor-
man, 1995). Because Machiavellians are so prone to betray the trust shown to them by others
(Harrell and Hartnagel, 1976), it is unlikely that the coworkers of Machiavellian employees can
settle into stable exchange relationships without worrying that they are being deceived.
Machiavellianism and Well-Being in the Broader Organization
Thus far, we have documented that Machiavellian unethical behaviors harm the Machiavellian
perpetrator, the intended target of the unethical behavior, and the social work group in which these
behaviors occur. We consequently propose that the unethical acts committed by Machiavellians in
the workplace may aggregate to indirectly detract from the well-being of the larger organizational
system as well. The manipulative tactics employed by Machiavellians are all committed in an
effort to obtain a desired outcome, usually for their own self-interest. These acts may secure them
individual prestige, power, or status, but may come at the expense of the organization. Similar
ideas are reflected in previous research on extreme careerism in organizations (e.g., Bratton
and Kacmar, 2004; Feldman and Weitz, 1991). Extreme careerism involves the advancement of
individual careers through negative impression-management tactics rather than the substantive
performance that makes one qualified to move up within an organization. Bratton and Kacmar
(2004) proposed that Machiavellians were especially likely to engage in extreme careerism, and
allowing Machiavellians to assume positions of leadership and influence within an organization
is likely to detract from the organization’s success by placing self-interested and potentially un-
derqualified people in positions of responsibility.
The detrimental effects of Machiavellian unethical behaviors throughout the organization can
affect several group outcomes that undermine general organizational success. For example, both the
depression experienced by victims of unethical behavior and the job stress that the Machiavellian
perpetrator experiences can result in impaired group performance (Gemmill and Heisler, 1972;
Penhaligon, Louis, and Restubog, 2009). Also, as previously described, supervisor Machiavel-
lianism is positively linked to employee perceptions of abusive supervision (Kiazed et al., 2010),
which can encourage retaliatory deviance, detract from relationship quality, or undermine the
organization’s climate for fairness or justice (Colquitt, Noe, and Jackson, 2002). For example,

190 DAHLING, KUYUMCU, AND LIBRIZZI
Restubog, Scott, and Zagenczyk (2011) found an increase in supervisor-directed deviance among
individuals who had experienced abusive supervision. Reductions in job performance and increases
in workplace strife can have serious consequences for the prosperous operation and financial suc-
cess of the organization. In summary, the available evidence suggests that the aggregate result of
Machiavellian unethical behavior unfolding in dyadic relationships and work groups may be the
compromised well-being and performance of the entire organization.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ON MACHIAVELLIANISM AND
WELL-BEING
Although an impressive body of evidence has documented the detrimental effects of Machiavellian
unethical behaviors on well-being, additional research is needed to clarify several issues. Most
important, future research should expand beyond a focus on either Machiavellian individuals or
dyadic relationships to explore how Machiavellianism impacts the broader social network and
organizational performance criteria. Most research to date has drawn inferences about how Ma-
chiavellian behavior might poison the broader organization, but evidence of these consequences
is limited.
Social network analysis (Borgatti and Foster, 2003) offers a particularly fruitful approach for
answering these questions. Social network analysis involves mapping the social relationships be-
tween people in an identifiable organization to examine how tangible and social assets (knowledge,
trust, liking, etc.) are shared. In a social network, individual power is a consequence of having
many connections in a relatively sparse network full of structural holes. In such a context, power-
ful people have access to resources and are able to broker relationships between other people who
would otherwise be unconnected. We expect that Machiavellians seek to find and occupy these
strategic positions that bridge structural holes to keep themselves well-informed and important in
the social network. This idea is broadly consistent with some findings that show that Machiavel-
lianism only contributes to performance as tenure increases, which suggests that Machiavellian
employees need time to strategically embed themselves in the social network of an organiza-
tion before they can capitalize on their motivations and become successful (Dahling, Whitaker,
and Levy, 2009). Notably, such an arrangement is detrimental to the overall health of the social
network, as denser networks with fewer structural holes allow for a freer exchange of resources
and information where they are needed to enhance organizational productivity. Future research
on social networks could compellingly demonstrate how Machiavellian employees threaten the
organization by perpetuating ineffective social arrangements that best serve themselves.
Another important direction for future research concerns the Machiavellianism exhibited by
top leaders who are in key positions to impact organizational success. The limited research on
Machiavellian leaders has presented mixed evidence about when Machiavellian leadership will
detract from organizational well-being. For example, Deluga (2001) found that Machiavellianism
(as inferred from historical profiles) was positively related to ratings of charisma and performance
among all past American presidents. Evidence from lab studies also suggests that Machiavellian
leaders can be highly adaptive in uncertain contexts and that they adopt a task-oriented style to
help clarify objectives. However, Machiavellian leaders also tend to be very inconsiderate of fol-
lowers, ineffective when resolving group conflicts, and easily frustrated when faced with tasks that
are unfavorable or difficult (Drory and G>). Despite these important preliminary findings, little
is known about Machiavellianism and its effects among real business leaders, which is a criti-
cal shortcoming of the literature. Future research should focus on how leader Machiavellianism
impacts both internal and external organizational criteria, such as the development of an ethical

UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR, AND WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE 191
climate inside the organization (Schminke, Ambrose, and Neubaum, 2005) and the profitability
of the organization relative to its external competitors.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGING MACHIAVELLIANISM
The negative effects of Machiavellianism on well-being are best managed by preventing the
expression of Machiavellian unethical behavior in the first place, and the literature on Machia-
vellianism fortunately offers several useful suggestions for managers. First, we emphasize again
that Machiavellian employees are amoral, not immoral. If individual reward systems are carefully
constructed to encourage rule abidance, ethical conduct, and helpful behaviors, Machiavellians will
respond accordingly. Such interventions depend on a careful knowledge of how reward systems can
inadvertently encourage deviant behavior (Litzky, Eddleston, and Kidder, 2006) and a thoughtful
alignment of individual and organizational interests. Effective reward systems should draw on the
perspectives of multiple raters and observers in the organization to minimize the impact of social
manipulation, apply uniformly consistent standards for ethical conduct in the evaluation process
to send a clear message about ethical expectations, and incentivize group or team performance
to emphasize a collective orientation. Recent work by Kasser and colleagues (e.g., Kasser, 2011;
Kasser, Vansteenkiste, and Deckop, 2006) on making organizations less materialistic could help in
this respect. For example, Kasser, Vansteenkiste, and Deckop (2006) suggested that organizations
can be less materialistic by providing group- or organization-level rewards, adopting gain-sharing
plans, rewarding servant leadership, and eliminating pay-for-performance systems that undermine
intrinsic motivation. Such contexts are extremely unlikely to attract Machiavellian candidates
or elicit unethical behavior among current employees who are predominately concerned with
extrinsic, material rewards.
Previous research also clearly indicates that Machiavellians are most likely to thrive when work-
ing in unstructured contexts that provide an opportunity to engage in unethical behavior without
being monitored or caught. For example, Machiavellians are more successful and more satisfied
in jobs that are characterized by what Sparks (1994) referred to as a high “latitude for improvi-
sation,” the opportunity for regularly independent operations with little supervision. Similarly,
Shultz (1993) found that highly Machiavellian employees only outperformed low Machiavellians
in organizations characterized by loose rather than tight structure. More recently, Whitaker (2011)
found that autonomy moderated the link between Machiavellianism and coworker intimidation
such that intimidation only occurs when autonomy is high rather than low. A clear recommendation
based on these findings is that close management and monitoring with a narrow span of control
may reduce unethical Machiavellian behavior. In a related finding, politically skilled managers
are better able to recognize and discount the influence tactics of Machiavellian employees, and
these managers consequently see Machiavellians as less worthy of promotion (ibid.). Thus, the
quality of the monitoring is important as well; Machiavellian unethical behavior is most likely
to be thwarted when countered with structured work and close supervision by a manager with
strong social skills.
Finally, we note that several measures of Machiavellianism are available in the literature
(Christie and Geis, 1970; Dahling, Whitaker, and Levy 2009 Kessler et al., 2010), and it may be
possible to screen for Machiavellian personality when hiring. As suggested previously, the most
dangerous profile for a potential candidate pairs high Machiavellianism with high cognitive and
emotional ability. The potentially destructive consequences of this combination are reflected in
recent research on counterproductive, “dark” uses of emotional intelligence in organizational
settings (Kilduff, Chiaburu, and Menges, 2010). Employees with high Machiavellianism and

192 DAHLING, KUYUMCU, AND LIBRIZZI
high emotional and cognitive abilities possess both the “motive” and the “means,” respectively,
to significantly harm colleagues and organizations (Neuman and Keashly, 2010). When coupled
with the opportunity afforded by loosely structured work, these employees pose a considerable
threat to well-being that managers cannot ignore.
In conclusion, Machiavellian employees exhibit a wide range of unethical workplace behaviors
that threaten the well-being of the Machiavellian perpetrator, the intended target of the behaviors,
and the broader work group and organization. However, effective management in the form of
structured monitoring, carefully constructed reward systems, and rigorous selection processes
can thwart these undesirable outcomes. Moreover, such practices communicate to employees
that ethical behavior is encouraged and in their best interests, which contributes to organizational
growth and development.
REFERENCES
Andrew, J.; Cooke, M.; and Muncer, S.J. 2008. The relationship between empathy and Machiavellianism: An
alternative to empathizing-systemizing theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1203–1211.
Austin, E.J.; Farrelly, D.; Black, C.; and Moore, H. 2007. Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emo-
tional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 179–189.
Bass, K.; Barnett, T.; and Brown, G. 1999. Individual difference variables, ethical judgments, and ethical
behavioral intentions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9, 183–205.
Becker, J.A.H., and O’Hair, H.D. 2007. Machiavellians’ motives in organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 246–267.
Bloodgood, J.M.; Turnley, W.H.; and Mudrack, P.E. 2010. Ethics instruction and the perceived acceptability
of cheating. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 23–37.
Borgatti, S.P., and Foster, P.C. 2003. The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typol-
ogy. Journal of Management, 29, 991–1013.
Bratton, V.K., and Kacmar, K.M. 2004. Extreme careerism: The dark side of impression management. In
The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior, ed. R.W. Griffin and A.M. O’Leary-Kelly, 291–308. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Christie, R. 1970. Why Machiavelli? In Studies in Machiavellianism, ed. R. Christie and F. Geis, 1–9. New
York: Academic Press.
Christie, R., and Geis, F. (eds.). 1970. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Colquitt, J.A.; Noe, R.A.; and Jackson, C.L. 2002. Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of pro-
cedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83–109.
Corzine, J.B.; Buntzman, G.F.; and Busch, E.T. 1999. Machiavellianism in U.S. bankers. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7, 72–83.
Dahling, J.J., Whitaker, B.G., and Levy, P.E. 2009. The development and validation of a new Machiavel-
lianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, 219–257.
de Grazia, S. 1989. Machiavelli in Hell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Deluga, R.J. 2001. American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and
rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 339–363
Drory, A., and Gluskinos, U.M. 1980. Machiavellianism and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
65, 81–86.
Fehr, B.; Samsom, D.; and Paulhus, D.L. 1992. The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In
Advances in Personality Assessment, vol. 9, ed. C.D. Spielberger and J.M. Butcher, 77–116. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Feldman, D.C., and Weitz, B.A. 1991. From the invisible hand to the glad hand: Understanding a careerist
orientation to work. Human Resource Management, 30, 237–257.
Forsyth, D.R. 1980. A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
175–184.
Gable, M., and Topol, M. 1988. Machiavellianism and the department store executive. Journal of Retailing,
64, 68–84.
Geis, F.L., and Moon, T.H. 1981. Machiavellianism and deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 41, 766–775.

UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR, AND WELL-BEING IN ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE 193
Gemmill, G.R., and Heisler, W.J. 1972. Machiavellianism as a factor in managerial job strain, job satisfac-
tion, and upward mobility. Academy of Management Journal, 15, 51–62.
Giacalone, R.A., and Knouse, S.B. 1990. Justifying wrongful employee behavior: The role of personality in
organizational sabotage. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 55–61.
Giacalone, R.A., and Promislo, M.D. 2010. Unethical and unwell: Decrements in well-being and unethical
activity at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 275–297.
Granitz, N.A. 2003. Individual, social and organizational sources of sharing and variation in the ethical
reasoning of managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 101–124.
Gunnthorsdottir, A.; McCabe, K.; and Smith, V. 2002. Using the Machiavellianism instrument to predict
trustworthiness in a bargaining game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 49–66.
Harrell, W.A., and Hartnagel, T. 1976. The impact of Machiavellianism and the trustfulness of the victim on
laboratory theft. Sociometry, 39, 157–165.
Hawley, P.H. 2003. Prosocial and coercive configurations of resources control in early adolescence: A case
for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 279–309.
Hegarty, W.H. and Sims, H.P. Jr. 1979. Organizational philosophy, policies, and objective related to unethical
decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 331–338.
Hobman, E.V.; Restubog, S.L.D.; Bordia, P.; and Tang, R.L. 2009. Abusive supervision in advising rela-
tionships: Investigating the role of social support. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58,
233–256.
Janisse, M.P., and Bradley, M.T. 1980. Deception, information and the papillary response. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 50, 748–750.
Jones, D.N., and Paulhus, D.L. 2009. Machiavellianism. In Handbook of Individual Differences in Social
Behavior, ed. M.R. Leary and R.H. Hoyle, 93–108. New York: Guilford Press.
Jones, G.E., and Kavanagh, M.J. 1996. An experimental examination of the effects of individual and
situational factors on unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics,
15, 511–523.
Kasser, T. 2011. Cultural values and the well-being of future generations: A cross-national study. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 206–215.
Kasser, T.; Vansteenkiste, M.; and Deckop, J.R. 2006. The ethical problems of a materialistic value orienta-
tion for businesses (and some suggestions for alternatives). . In Human Resource Management Ethics,
ed. J.R. Deckop. Pp. 283–306 Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Kessler, S.R.; Bandelli, A.C.; Spector, P.E.; Borman, W.C.; Nelson, C.E.; and Penney, L.M. 2010. Re-
examining Machiavelli: A three-dimensional model of Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1868–1896.
Kiazad, K.; Restubog, S.L.D.; Zagencyk, T.J.; Kiewitz, C.; and Tang, R.L. 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, 512–519.
Kilduff, M.; Chiaburu, D.S.; and Menges, J.I. 2010. Strategic use of emotional intelligence in organizational
settings: Exploring the dark side. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 129–152.
LaTorre, R.A., and McLeoad, E. 1978. Machiavellianism and clinical depression in a geriatric sample. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 34, 659–660.
Litzky, B.E.; Eddleston, K.A.; and Kidder, D.L. 2006. The good, the bad, and the misguided: How managers
inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 91–103.
Liu, C.C. 2008. The relationship between Machiavellianism and knowledge sharing willingness. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 22, 223–240.
Machiavelli, N. 1513/1981. The Prince, trans. D. Donno. New York: Bantam Books.
Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; and Schoorman, F.D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy
of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
McHoskey, J.W. 1999. Machiavellianism, intrinsic versus extrinsic goals and social interest: A self-determi-
nation theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 267–283.
McHoskey, J.W.; Hicks, B.; Betris, T.; Szyarto, C.; Worzel, W.; Kelly, K.; et al. 1999. Machiavellianism,
adjustment, and ethics. Psychological Reports, 85, 138–142.
McLeod, B.A., and Genereux, R.L. 2008. Predicting the acceptability and likelihood of lying: The interaction
of personality with type of lie. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 591–596.
Neuman, J.H., and Keashly, L. 2010. Means, motive, opportunity, and aggressive workplace behavior. In
Insidious Workplace Behavior, ed. J. Greenberg, 31–76. New York: Routledge.

194 DAHLING, KUYUMCU, AND LIBRIZZI
Nigro, G., and Galli, I. 1985. On the relationship between Machiavellianism and anxiety among Italian
undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 56, 37–38.
O’Fallon, M.J., and Butterfield, K.D. 2005. A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature:
1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.
O’Hair, D., and Cody, M. 1987. Machiavellian beliefs and social influence. Western Journal of Speech Com-
munication, 51, 279–303.
Paulhus, D.L., and Williams, K.M. 2002. The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and
psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.
Penhaligon, N.L.; Louis, W.R.; and Restubog, S.L.D. 2009. Emotional anguish at work: The mediating role
of perceived rejection on workgroup mistreatment and affective outcomes. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 14, 34–45.
Restubog, S.L.D.; Scott, K.L.; and Zagenczyk, T.J. 2011. When distress hits home: The role of contextual
factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 4, 713–729.
Ross, W.T., and Robertson, D.C. 2000. Lying: The impact of decision context. Business Ethics Quarterly,
10, 409–440.
Schminke, M.; Ambrose, M.L.; and Neubaum, D.O. 2005. The effect of leader moral development on
ethical climate and employee attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97,
135–151.
Shultz, C.J. 1993. Situational and dispositional predictors of performance: A test of the hypothesized Ma-
chiavellianism x structure interaction among sales persons. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,
478–498.
Shlenker, B.R. 1980. Impression Management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Skinner, N.F. 1982. Personality correlates of Machiavellianism: IV. Machiavellianism and psychopathology.
Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 201–203.
Sparks, J.R. 1994. Machiavellianism and personal success in marketing: The moderating role of latitude for
improvisation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 393–400.
Stewart, A.E., and Stewart, E.A. 2006. The preference to excel and its relationship to selected personality
variables. Journal of Individual Psychology, 62, 270–284.
Tang, T.L., and Chen, Y. 2007. Intelligence vs. wisdom: The love of money, Machiavellianism, and unethical
behavior across college major and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 1–26.
Teven, J.J.; McCroskey, J.C.; and Richmond, V.P. 2006. Communication correlates of perceived Machia-
vellianism of supervisors: Communication orientations and outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 54,
127–142.
Vecchio, R.P. 2005. Exploration in employee envy: Feeling envious and feeling envied. Cognition and
Emotion, 19, 69–81.
Walter, H.L.; Anderson, C.M.; and Martin, M.M. 2005. How subordinates’ Machiavellianism and motives
relate to satisfaction with superiors. Communication Quarterly, 53, 57–70.
Wastell, C.A., and Booth, A. 2003. Machiavellianism: An alexithymic perspective. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 22, 730–744.
Whitaker, B.G. 2011. Extreme careerism and supervisor reactions to peer intimidation. Paper presented at
the 2011 meeting of the Academy of Management, August 15?>>, San Antonio, TX.
Wilson, D.S.; Near, D.; and Miller, R.R. 1996. Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psy-
chological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 285–299.
Winter, S.J.; Stylianou, A.C.; and Giacalone, R.A. 2004. Individual differences in the acceptability of un-
ethical information technology practices: The case of Machiavellianism and ethical ideology. Journal of
Business Ethics, 54, 279–301.
Wirtz, J., and Kum, D. 2004. Consumer cheating on service guarantees. Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, 32, 159–175.