The Machiavellian Leadership: Scale Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 5, 89 - 109, 01.09.2025

İrem Demir Arıcı , İbrahim Kocabaş

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.65.12.5

Abstract

This study aims to develop a valid and reliable instrument, the Machiavellian Leadership Scale (MLS), designed to assess the extent to which educational leaders exhibit Machiavellian characteristics. In the research, the survey model was preferred in accordance with the objective of scale development. The scale has a structure that can be applied in all organizations. The sample of the research consists of administrators working in public and private schools in Istanbul. In the scale development process, first Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and then Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted within the scope of validity evaluation. EFA was conducted with 214 participants and CFA with 256 participants. As a result of the analyses, a scale consisting of four dimensions and 20 items was obtained. The sub-dimensions of the scale were named as protection, manipulation, strategic planning and power. Based on the results, the scale demonstrated a high level of internal consistency, indicating strong reliability. Additionally, the items showed significant discriminatory power in distinguishing between different levels of leadership behavior. These findings suggest that the Machiavellian Leadership Scale is a valid and reliable tool for assessing educational leadership within organizational settings. This result shows that the scale items have a high performance in terms of reliability and validity. As a result, it was decided that the scale was credible and consistent, and the scale was named as Machiavellian Leadership Scale (MLS).

Keywords

leadership , Machiavellian leadership , scale development.

References

• Adair, J. E. (2006). Leadership and motivation: The fifty-fifty rule and the eight key principles of motivating others. Kogan Page Publishers.
• Alcorn, D. S. (1997). The dynamics of effective guidance: Learning from Nehemiah. Baker Books.
• Alkayış, A. (2020). Pragmatism and education: John Dewey’s approach to education. Bingöl University Press.
• Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Manual for the multifactor guidance questionnaire. Mind Garden.
• Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), 815-824.
• Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational guidance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Basto, R., Fernandes, J., & Duarte, P. (2024). Strategic decision-making and the role of Machiavellian leadership in corporate settings. Journal of Organizational Studies, 29(2), 143-165.
• Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
• Becker, J. A., & Dan O'Hair, H. (2007). Machiavellians’ motives in organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 246-267.
• 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.
• Bitonti, A., Funiciello, A., & Mariotti, C. (2025). Charismatic Leadership and Machiavelli. In Machiavelli, Marketing and Management (pp. 101-114). Routledge.
• Boddy, C. R. (2017). Psychopathic leadership a case study of a corporate psychopath CEO. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 141-156.
• Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 29(2), 141-160.
• Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational guidance and management (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (27th ed.) [in Turkish]. Pegem Akademi.
• Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
• Canbolat, M. A., & Karagöz, H. (2023). Örgütsel değişime açıklığın iş becerikliliğine etkisinde algılanan kapsayıcı liderliğin aracılık etkisi: Bankacılık sektöründe bir araştırma [in Turkish]. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 19(4), 953-973.
• Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25-44.
• Çelik, H., & Yılmaz, V. (2013). LISREL 9.1 ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi [Structural equation modeling with LISREL 9.1]. Anı Publishing.
• Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Executive personality, capability cues, and risk taking: How narcissistic CEOs react to their successes and stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 202-237.
• Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.
• Cohen, T. R., & Morse, L. (2014). Moral character: What it is and what it does. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 43–61.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Multivariate statistics for social sciences: Applications of SPSS and LISREL (Vol. 2). Pegem Academy Publishing.
• Culver, R., Bergman, C., Carson, P., & Holden, T. (2024). The role of Machiavellianism in strategic leadership and decision-making processes. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 41(1), 55-78.
• Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a Machiavellian personality scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219-257.
• Davis, E. A. (2023). A new perspective on Machiavellian leadership. Political Research Quarterly, 76(4), 1805-1813.
• Demirel, F. (2023). Truth and ethics in the context of pragmatism and education [in Turkish]. Education and Society in the 21st Century, 12(35), 593–608.
• Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor evaluation of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 453-461.
• Eker, S. (2020). The effect of Machiavellian attitude on academic achievement in higher education. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy, 5(2), 78-95.
• 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.
• Galie, P. J., & Bopst, C. (2006). Machiavelli & modern business: Realist thought in contemporary corporate leadership manuals. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 235-250.
• Genau, H. A., Blickle, G., Schütte, N., & Meurs, J. A. (2021). Machiavellian leader effectiveness: The moderating role of political skill. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 21(1), 1–10.
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics 27 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
• Harms, P. D., & Spain, S. M. (2015). The dark side of guidance: Balancing personal well-being and organizational outcomes. Organizational Dynamics, 44(4), 235-242.
• Harris, P., Lock, A., & Rees, P. (2000). Machiavellian marketing: The development of a political marketing perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(3), 243-264.
• House, R. J. (1977). A theory of charismatic guidance. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Southern Illinois University Press.
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure evaluation: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
• Hughes, J., Kornberger, M., MacKay, B., O'Brien, P., & Reddy, S. (2023). Organisational strategy and its implications for strategic studies: A review article. Journal of Strategic Studies, 46(2), 427-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2021.1994950
• Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93-108). Guilford Press.
• Kara, A. (2016). Liderlik ve yönetim: Kurumsal yaklaşımlar [Leadership and management: Corporate approaches]. Nobel Pub.
• Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., & Nelson, C. E. (2010). The dark side of personality at work. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 79-120.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
• Lindley, J. K. (2018). Are unexplained financial rewards for snakes in suits? A labor market evaluation of the Dark Triad of personality. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(4), 770-797.
• Machiavelli, N. (1988). The prince (Q. Skinner & R. Price, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1513)
• Matthews, M. J., Kelemen, T. K., Matthews, S. H., & Matthews, J. M. (2022). The Machiavellian organization: A multilevel model to understand decision making in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 47(2), 413-439.
• O’Boyle Jr, E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Rutherford, M. W. (2012). Exploring the relationship between family involvement and firms’ financial performance: A meta-evaluation of main and moderator effects. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.09.002
• O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-evaluation of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557-579.
• 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
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
• Ricks, J. M., & Fraedrich, J. P. (1999). The paradox of Machiavellianism: Can Machiavellianism produce sales while reducing managerial ratings? Journal of Business Ethics, 20(3), 197–205.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner's guide to structural equation modelling (4th ed.). Routledge.
• Scott, J. T., & Zaretsky, R. (2013). Why machiavelli Still matters. New York Times, 9, A31.
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik [Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measurements]. Seçkin Pub.
• Skinner, Q. (1981). Machiavelli. Oxford University Press.
• Smith, S. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2013). Psychopathy in the workplace: The knowns and unknowns. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(2), 204-218.
• Song, S., Chen, X., Xu, X., Jiang, W., Wang, W. & Shi, Y. (2025). Between facilitation and hindrance: linking CEO Machiavellianism, top management team collective organizational engagement and new ventures performance. Chinese Management Studies, 19(3), 456-478.
• Spurk, D., Keller, A. C., & Hirschi, A. (2016). Do bad guys get ahead or fall behind? Relationships of the Dark Triad of personality with objective and subjective career success. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 7(2), 113-121.
• Srivastava, S., Raina, R., & Madan, P. (2024). The positive aspects of Machiavellian leadership: Impact on employee engagement and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, 11(2), 77-99.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Ugoani, J. (2024). Political behavior and strategic influence of Machiavellian leaders in business organizations. Journal of Political and Business Studies, 17(3), 233-256.
• Uppal, N. (2021). How Machiavellianism reveals impression management motives: The role of social intelligence and networking ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110314.
• Üstün, B., & Ersolak, T. (2020). Makyavelizmin iş yeri nezaketsizliği üzerindeki etkileri: Bankacılık sektörü örneği [The effects of Machiavellianism on workplace incivility: The banking sector example]. İş Ahlakı Dergisi [Journal of Business Ethics], 13(3), 54-72.
• Whitehead, K. (2024). The strategic advantages of Machiavellian leadership in crisis management and decision-making. London School of Economics Theses Collection.
• Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 285–299.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.
• Yurdabakan, İ., & Çüm, S. (2017). Scale development through factor analysis. Education and Science, 42(190), 1–15.