UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 10.4 Free with a free account
The Dark Side of Influence: Machiavellianism in the Workplace
Principles of Management · Chapter 10: Classic Theories and Models of LeadershipSection 10.4 · lesson 58 of 11712 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Inside the Circle: Leader-Member Exchange Theory →← Clearing the Path: The Path-Goal Approach to LeadershipNext lesson: Inside the Circle: Leader-Member Exchange Theory →
In this lesson
A measured disposition, and the openings an organization can close.
- Define the construct and how it is measured
- State its organizational effects honestly
- Name the 5 conditions that let it succeed
- Apply the legitimacy test
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,547 words). Read along, or search it.
Classic Theories and Models of Leadership
The Dark Side of Influence: Machiavellianism in the Workplace
Some influence in organizations works by treating other people as tools. This section looks at that pattern through a research construct called Machiavellianism. We'll handle it carefully, because it's easy to misuse. First, we'll define the construct, and see how researchers measure it. Then we'll state its organizational findings honestly, without exaggeration. The most useful part comes next. It's the five organizational conditions in which instrumental behavior succeeds. We'll cover what happens to a team on the receiving end, and what a manager should do. And we'll finish with a test that separates legitimate influence from manipulation.
The Construct
A Disposition With 3 Features
In organizational research, Machiavellianism is a disposition with three features. The first is a cynical view of others. That's a general expectation that people are self-interested, and untrustworthy. The second is a willingness to use instrumental behavior toward people. That means treating them as means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves. The third is a focus on self-interested outcomes, as the governing objective. Now, two points about how the construct is measured. It's a continuous individual difference. People vary along a spectrum, rather than sorting cleanly into two categories. And it's not a diagnostic label. It describes a measured tendency on a research instrument. It's not a clinical or formal designation of any kind.
The Research Context
Research Instruments, Not Diagnostic Tools
The name comes historically from the Renaissance writer Niccolò Machiavelli. His name became associated with a particular view of political strategy. That's noted here only for accuracy. The modern construct is a specific, measured disposition. It isn't a claim about the historical figure himself. In the research literature, it sits within a broader category sometimes called aversive personality traits. That category names a cluster of related dispositions, studied because they're linked to interpersonally costly behavior. Measurement relies on self-report questionnaires. Respondents rate their own agreement with a series of statements reflecting the definition. And here's a caution, stated plainly. These are research instruments, not diagnostic tools. They were built and validated for studying patterns across groups of research participants. They weren't built for assessing, labeling, or making decisions about any specific individual.
The Findings
Stated Without Exaggeration
What does the research actually find in organizations? These findings should be stated without exaggerating their prevalence, or their effect. First, research finds associations with certain short-term outcomes, in specific conditions. In some studies, higher measured Machiavellianism has correlated with short-term individual advantage. But only under particular organizational circumstances. We'll get to those in a moment. Second, research finds associations with counterproductive work behavior. That's behavior that works against organizational or coworker interests. Third, there's a genuine difficulty with causal direction, because most of the evidence is correlational. Does the disposition cause these outcomes? Or are people already positioned to benefit from instrumental behavior, simply more likely to score highly? The research can't yet fully separate those two explanations.
Where It Succeeds
5 Conditions: A Design Problem
Here's the most practically useful content in this section. Under what organizational conditions does instrumental behavior toward colleagues actually succeed? It's written entirely from the organization's position, as a matter of design weakness, and corrective control. It's not guidance for anyone seeking personal advantage. Five conditions recur. First, ambiguous performance measures. When responsibility isn't attributed clearly from the start, credit can be reallocated after the fact. Second, weak accountability for how results are achieved, as distinct from whether they were achieved at all. Third, information asymmetry. That's a gap in what different levels of an organization actually know. It leaves room for a selective or incomplete account to go unchallenged. Fourth, reward systems that recognize outcomes without regard to method. And fifth, a culture in which raising a concern carries real personal or professional risk. That culture suppresses exactly the internal challenge that would surface instrumental behavior early.
Table 10.4.1
Each Weakness Has a Corrective Control
Table ten point four point one pairs each condition with the weakness it exploits, and the control that removes it. Ambiguous performance measures let credit be reallocated after the fact. The control is to attribute responsibility for a specific outcome clearly, and in advance, not retrospectively. Weak accountability for method means there's no check on how a result was achieved. So evaluate the method behind a result, not only whether the result occurred. Information asymmetry lets a selective account go unchallenged. The fix is direct channels that let information reach every relevant level, without a single filtering point. Outcome-only rewards give no incentive to reach a result through an endorsed method. So tie reward explicitly to both outcome and method. And where raising a concern is costly, internal challenge is suppressed before it can surface a problem. The control there is to actively protect, and reward, the act of raising a legitimate concern. Notice that every control is a design change. None of them depends on judging anyone's personality.
The Receiving End
4 Effects on the Team
What happens to a team on the receiving end of sustained instrumental behavior from a colleague? Four recognizable effects follow. First, trust erodes. Team members grow uncertain whether colleagues' stated intentions match their actual conduct. Second, information is withheld. Once people no longer trust how it might be used, they become guarded about sharing what they know. Third, as eroded trust generalizes, people start attributing bad motive to ordinary behavior. They read hostile intent into conduct that may be entirely innocent. That's worth naming, because it means the harm extends beyond whatever the original behavior actually was. And fourth, capable people often leave. Skilled team members with other options choose to leave an environment they no longer find trustworthy.
The Manager's Response
3 Responsibilities
Suppose a manager observes conduct she believes is instrumental behavior toward colleagues. She has three specific responsibilities. First, document the observable conduct, rather than inferring the disposition. She records precisely what was said or done. She doesn't record a conclusion about the person's underlying character or motive. She can't verify that from outside. Second, apply the same standards and process as for any conduct concern. That's the disciplined, consistent process this course covers fully in Subchapter thirteen point nine. This kind of concern doesn't call for a different, or less rigorous, standard. Third, address the structural conditions, not only the individual. Remember the five conditions. Instrumental behavior succeeds because an organizational weakness allowed it to. Address only the single instance, and the same opening is left for whoever encounters it next.
The Ethical Boundary
Legitimate Influence or Manipulation?
Where's the line between legitimate influence and manipulation? That boundary was introduced in Subchapter nine point one, along with the power bases of Subchapter nine point ten. It rests on two tests. The first asks whether the influenced party's interests are genuinely considered. Influence that leaves the other party better off, or at minimum not worse off, is legitimate. Influence that serves the influencer at the other party's real expense is not. The second asks whether the influence would survive disclosure. Suppose its full basis were openly stated. Would it remain just as effective, and just as acceptable to the other party? If so, it's legitimate. If it depends on the other party not knowing the full picture, it isn't.
Figure 10.4.1
The Legitimacy Test
Figure ten point four point one applies the test to an influence attempt at a fictional firm, Harborline Manufacturing. The figure asks three questions. Are the influenced party's interests genuinely considered? Would the influence attempt survive full disclosure? And a third question. Is the basis for the request or claim accurate? To sit clearly on the legitimate side, an attempt must earn a yes on all three. A clear no to any single question is enough to place it on the manipulation side. That holds regardless of how the other two questions resolve. So the test isn't a balance, where strengths offset weaknesses. Each question can fail the attempt on its own.
The Firm Limit
The Construct Does Not License Labeling a Colleague
One limit governs everything in this section. The Machiavellianism construct does not license labeling a colleague. Using it as a personal diagnosis of someone a manager works with is, first, not accurate. The measure was built and validated for studying patterns across research populations, not for assessing individuals. And second, it's not defensible. It substitutes a borrowed research label for the actual documented conduct. That conduct is the only thing a manager can observe, verify, and legitimately act on. Everything in this section belongs at the level of observable behavior and organizational design. None of it belongs at the level of naming what another person supposedly is.
Case Vignette
Credit Reallocated in the Reporting
Here's a composite case, constructed for instruction. Priya was a department head at Harborline Manufacturing. A summary report went to senior leadership. It described a recent process improvement as substantially the work of one team member, Tomas. But Priya's own records showed a genuinely joint effort, with three team members working closely together. She didn't form a judgment about Tomas's character or motives. She focused on what she could document. The report's specific wording, set against her contemporaneous project records. Then she asked why the reallocation had been possible at all. The answer came readily. The reporting process had never required contributions to be verified against any project record before circulation. So she raised the conduct concern through the organization's standard process. And separately, she proposed a corrective control. Reported contributions would be checked against project records before circulation. That fixed the weakness in the measure itself, not only the single instance in front of her. Next, Subchapter ten point five turns to leader-member exchange theory, and how a leader's relationships differ across her own team.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About The Dark Side of Influence: Machiavellianism in the Workplace
What is Machiavellianism in the workplace?
What organizational conditions allow manipulative behavior to succeed?
How should a manager respond to manipulative behavior by an employee?
How can you tell legitimate influence from manipulation?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →