Machiavellian Leadership in Educational Organisations

Abstract

This study aims to analyze and evaluate the use of Machiavellian leadership approach in educational organizations. Machiavellian leadership can be defined as an approach inspired by the works of the Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli that emphasizes power, manipulation and strategic thinking in leadership. Such leaders are generally inclined to adopt any means to achieve their goals and may exhibit a flexible attitude towards ethical norms. While the advantages of Machiavellian leadership include quick decision-making, effective crisis management and the ability to focus on goals, its overuse can lead to loss of trust, reduced cooperation and negative long-term effects. While this leadership approach can be effective in certain situations, it needs to be applied in a balanced and careful manner. In educational organizations, this approach can encourage quick decision-making, goal-oriented work and management effectiveness. However, when used excessively, it can lead to negative consequences such as distrust, lack of cooperation and a shift away from student-centeredness. Research shows that Machiavellian leadership can affect performance and productivity within an organization both negatively and positively. In this context, this study emphasizes the importance of applying this approach in a balanced way while evaluating the effects of Machiavellian leadership on educational organizations. Leaders should prioritize core values such as collaboration, trust, and student-centeredness while embracing positive characteristics such as strong decision-making and goal-oriented work. In particular, Machiavellian leaders should avoid destructive and deceptive behaviors by resorting to prosocial interpersonal strategies when they want to improve themselves or leave a positive impression on others. In conclusion, a conscious and balanced application of Machiavellian leadership approach in educational organizations can contribute to improving school culture and increasing student achievement.

Keywords

• Leadership
• Machiavellian Leadership
• Leadership in Educational Organisation

Eğitim Örgütlerinde Makyavelist Liderlik: Değerlendirme ve İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, eğitim örgütlerinde makyavelist liderlik yaklaşımının kullanımını analiz ederek değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Makyavelist liderlik, İtalyan düşünür Niccolò Machiavelli'nin eserlerinden ilham alan ve liderlikte güç, manipülasyon ve stratejik düşünmeyi ön plana çıkaran bir yaklaşım olarak tanımlanabilir. Bu tür liderler, genellikle amaçlarına ulaşmak için her türlü yöntemi benimsemeye eğilimlidirler ve etik normlara esnek bir tutum sergileyebilirler. Makyavelist liderliğin avantajları arasında hızlı karar verme, etkili kriz yönetimi ve hedeflere odaklanma yeteneği bulunurken, aşırı kullanımı güven kaybına, işbirliğinin azalmasına ve uzun vadede olumsuz etkilere yol açabilir (Shultz & Shriver, 2014). Bu liderlik anlayışı, belirli durumlarda etkili olabilse de, dengeli ve dikkatli bir şekilde uygulanması gereklidir. Eğitim örgütlerinde bu yaklaşım, hızlı karar almayı, hedef odaklı çalışmayı ve yönetimde etkinliği teşvik edebilir. Ancak, ölçüsüz bir şekilde kullanıldığında, güvensizlik, işbirliği eksikliği ve öğrenci odaklılıktan uzaklaşma gibi olumsuz sonuçlar ortaya çıkabilir (Kessler et al, 2010; Park & Keil, 2009). Araştırmalar, makyavelist liderliğin örgüt içindeki performansı ve üretkenliği hem olumsuz hem de olumlu yönde etkileyebileceğini göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma makyavelist liderliğin eğitim örgütleri üzerindeki etkilerini değerlendirirken, bu yaklaşımın dengeli bir şekilde uygulanmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Liderlerin, güçlü karar alma ve hedefe yönelik çalışma gibi olumlu özellikleri benimserken, işbirliği, güven ve öğrenci odaklılık gibi temel değerlere de öncelik vermesi gerektiği belirtilmektedir. Özellikle, kendilerini geliştirmek veya çevrelerine olumlu bir izlenim bırakmak istediklerinde, makyavelist liderlerin prososyal kişilerarası stratejilere başvurarak, yıkıcı ve aldatıcı davranışlardan kaçınmaları gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, makyavelist liderlik yaklaşımının eğitim örgütlerinde bilinçli ve dengeli bir şekilde uygulanması, okul kültürünün iyileştirilmesine ve öğrenci başarısının artırılmasına katkı sağlayabilir.

Keywords

• Liderlik
• Makyavelist Liderlik
• Eğitim Örgütlerinde Liderlik

References

1. Arar, K., & Oplatka, I. (2016). Ethical leadership in education: A contextual approach. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(6), 972–992. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214558590
2. Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18(Suppl.), 13–25.
3. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8
4. Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Kalshoven, K. (2015). Leading Machiavellians: How to translate Machiavellians’ selfishness into pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1934–1956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313498909
5. Belschak, F. D., Muhammad, R. S., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2018). Birds of a feather can butt heads: When Machiavellian employees work with Machiavellian leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3247-6
6. Blickle, G., Genau-Hagebölling, H. A., Beckert, N., & Meurs, J. A. (2024). Machiavellian leader effectiveness: The protective role of social astuteness. In Leadership and Politics: New Perspectives in Business, Government and Society (pp. 37–63). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25733-9_3
7. Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 515–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00057-6
8. Boin, A., Kuipers, S., & Overdijk, W. (2013). Leadership in times of crisis: A framework for assessment. International Review of Public Administration, 18(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10805241

9. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
10. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
11. Cai, H., Wang, L., & Jin, X. (2024). Leader’s Machiavellianism and employees’ counterproductive work behavior: Testing a moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1283509. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1283509
12. Calhoon, R. P. (1969). Machiavellianism and leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 152–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-2
13. Chen, S. C., Zou, W. Q., & Liu, N. T. (2022). Leader humility and Machiavellianism: Investigating the effects on followers’ self-interested and prosocial behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 742546. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.742546
14. Choi, Y., Ha, S. B., & Choi, D. (2022). Leader humor and followers’ change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: The role of leader Machiavellianism. Behavioral Sciences, 12(2), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12020022
15. Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.
16. Davis, E. A. (2023). A new perspective on Machiavellian leadership. Political Research Quarterly, 76(4), 1805–1813. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129231111210
17. De Hoogh, A. H., Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2021). Showing one's true colors: Leader Machiavellianism, rules and instrumental climate, and abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(7), 851–866. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2532
18. Deluga, R. J. (2001). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group & Organization Management, 26(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601101261002
19. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
20. Fatima, T., Majeed, M., Jahanzeb, S., Gul, S., & Irshad, M. (2021). Servant leadership and Machiavellian followers: A moderated mediation model. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 37(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2021a18
21. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10-year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018
22. Genau, H. A., Blickle, G., Schütte, N., & Meurs, J. A. (2021). Machiavellian leader effectiveness. Journal of Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000291
23. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
24. Gurtman, M. B. (2001). The Machiavellian personality: A bridge between two paradigms. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 29(3), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2001.29.3.211
25. Hammali, A., & Nastiezaie, N. (2022). The effect of Machiavelli leadership on destructive organizational behaviors through mediation job stress. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 9(2), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2022.9.2.314
26. Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.007
27. Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169
28. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Southern Illinois University Press.
29. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
30. Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., & Nelson, C. E. (2010). Re-examining Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018887
31. Lee-Kugler, T., Gu, J., Li, Q., Eva, N., & Mitchell, R. (2024). Will a moral follower please stand up (to the Machiavellian leader)? The effects of Machiavellian leadership on moral anger and whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05485-4
32. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. National College for School Leadership.
33. Li, H., Huang, S., & Feng, Z. (2024). The complexity of Machiavellian leaders: How and when leader Machiavellianism impacts abusive supervision. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09778-w
34. Liyanagamage, N., & Fernando, M. (2023). Machiavellian leadership in organisations: A review of theory and research. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 44(6), 791–811. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2022-0323
35. Machiavelli, N. (1988). The Prince (Q. Skinner & R. Price, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1513).
36. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). Basic Books.
37. Niccolò Machiavelli. (1513/1992). The Prince (C. E. Detmold, Trans.). Dover Publications.
38. Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
39. O'Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679
40. O’Connor, K. M., & Morrison, E. W. (2001). An experimental study of workplace lying behavior: The role of decision context, interpersonal influence, and ethical values. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825
41. Park, C., & Keil, M. (2009). Organizational silence and whistle-blowing on IT projects: An integrated model. Decision Sciences, 40(4), 901–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2009.00252.x
42. Paulhus, D. L., & Jones, D. N. (2015). Measures of dark personalities. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 562–594). Academic Press.
43. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
44. Pilch, I., & Turska, E. (2015). Relationships between Machiavellianism, organizational culture, and workplace bullying: Emotional abuse from the target's and the perpetrator's perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2081-3
45. Rego, P., Lopes, M. P., & Simpson, A. V. (2017). The authentic‐Machiavellian leadership grid: A typology of leadership styles. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11(2), 48–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21515
46. Shah, S. I., Shahjehan, A., & Afsar, B. (2022). Leading Machiavellians on the road to better organizational behavior. Personnel Review, 51(5), 1604–1626. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2020-0704
47. Shultz, K. S., & Shriver, S. L. (2014). Managing the ageing workforce: Challenges and opportunities. Routledge.
48. Skinner, Q. (1981). Machiavelli. Oxford University Press.
49. Tomkova, A., Ondrijova, I., Ratnayake-Kascakova, D., & Nemec, J. (2021). Leaders and Machiavellian manifestations: Workers' innovation development and business performance. Marketing i Menedžment Innovacij, (3), 23–31.
50. Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258
51. Üzüm, B., & Özkan, O. S. (2023). The role of responsible leadership in relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows. Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.17323/2312-5942-2023-13-1-59-72
52. Üzüm, B., Özkan, O. S., & Çakan, S. (2022). Moral disengagement, organizational broken window, person-organization fit as an antecedent: Machiavellian leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior Research, 7(1), 29–41.
53. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913
54. Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.285
55. Xiu, L., Lv, F., & van Dierendonck, D. (2024). The interplay of servant leadership behaviors and Machiavellianism on perceived leader effectiveness: The role of team conflict management. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 33(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-09-2022-0254
56. Xiu, L., van Dierendonck, D., & Lv, F. (2023, August). Leaders' Machiavellian traits and servant leadership behaviors: A gender perspective. In Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 12(2), 336–352. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-09-2022-0074
57. Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? Teachers College Press.