The Myth of the Machiavellian Leader

Source: Stockfour/Shutterstock

The idea that good leaders must create fear to be successful can be traced back to the 16th century writings of Niccolò Machiavelli in his advice to the Prince of Florence. You shouldn’t need your followers to like you, so this advice goes, you just need to produce results (“the ends justify the means”). Any other leadership style is doomed to fail. If you’re too nice to the people you’re trying to get to work for you, they’ll just get soft.

Thinking about current political or business leaders whom you hear about in the news, you can easily see Machiavellianism play out, particularly when you find their tactics to be questionable in terms of morality or ethicality. But, if those tactics work, why complain?

Perspectives on the Machiavellian Leader

According to a new research review paper led by the University of Alabama’s Alexander Marbuk (2025), there’s a tension in the organizational psychology literature between viewing Machiavellianism as a part of effective leadership or as a fatal flaw. The effective side of the argument notes their ability to get the job done through brute force and domination. But those who take the opposite position maintain that the tendency to exploit, punish, and terrorize their employees goes against the grain of what ethical, fair, and moral leaders ought to do in order to inspire followers to accede to their goals.

You may be able to relate to one side or the other of the debate depending on your own personal experiences with people who fit the Machiavellian mold. Perhaps you had a boss whom you were afraid to complain about, even when you were forced to do things you found morally questionable. You knew that this person hit their targets, and so there was no point in doing anything differently. But, you also knew that you felt no loyalty to this individual, didn’t want to be around them, and felt that you were always on the brink of being fired should you fail to measure up.

Marbuk et al. examined both sides of the Machiavellian leadership debate, asking the question “ Are paranoia, guile, and selfishness characteristics of effective leaders?” (p. 3). Two theoretical arguments help address the question. From a socioanalytic theory perspective, needs for status and belonging are inherently in conflict. But Machiavellian leaders are able to build on these needs by exercising the kinds of social skills that will cover up their true motives while still getting what they want. They adapt via a combination of “risk detection and political behavior” (p. 4).

The mimicry-deception perspective argues that Machiavellians use political behavior to impress their own supervisors, balancing “reputation building with predatory behaviors” (p. 4). They succeed when they convince these influential others that they’re acting in the company’s (not their own) interests. They fail, though, when they’re caught out as mimics or cheaters who try to rig the game for their advantage.

Putting these together, Marbuk and his colleagues suggest that “In other words, their predatory acts stem from their beliefs that they must victimize others to avoid being viewed as prey and that successful people exploit others while avoiding others' attempts to exploit them” (p. 6).

What the Data Say

To test the two sides of the Machiavellian argument, the U. Alabama authors examined data from 163 samples, including nearly 511,000 participants, examining the relationships among scores on a variety of personality measures and outcomes in terms of followers and their own evaluations. Follower outcomes included relationship perceptions (leader-member exchange, abusive supervision), performance (task performance, organizational citizenship vs. deviance), and well-being (satisfaction and burnout). Leader outcomes included “emergence” (ability to rise in the company) and effectiveness (evaluations and objective economic gain).

As indices of Machiavellianism, the authors included the factors of antisocial themes (cynical beliefs, sardonic emotions, and anomie) and adaptiveness (risk detection and political behavior). The authors also took job length (tenure) and other personal factors into account.

The final piece of the analysis included the broad category of leader behaviors, which became factored into outcomes. These were morality (being authentic and ethical), charismatic (transformational), and basic leadership qualities of building structure and showing consideration.

Machiavellianism Essential Reads

Why It's So Hard to Catch a Master Manipulator

How Personality Drives Major Choices in Business Fields

Putting the test into the basic contrast between “just world” (Machiavellians should do poorly because they’re bad people) and “nice guys finish last,” the findings ultimately boiled down to the “some of each” category. Machiavellianism was indeed a powerful predictor of questionable, if not bad, leadership styles and poor follower outcomes. Their tactics make their followers miserable, conclude the authors. The only positive quality showing up on the ledger books, aside from being perceived as charismatic, is that they could produce results. But, should they fail in this key indicator, they are in for a very hard fall.

As evidence for the disastrous effects they have on their followers, the authors summarize these outcomes in terms of “alarming effect sizes:” abusive supervision (28%), poor relationship quality (49%), relationship oriented behaviors (19%), follower misbehavior (15%), and follower burnout (12%). Such outcomes could be responsible for what the authors suggest is “trusting them with power is a high-risk gamble” (p. 15).

The Dangers of Machiavellianism

From a moral and philosophical standpoint, the authors come out with the clear-cut conclusion that it’s just not worth it to take the Machiavellian approach into your own leadership style. Unlike psychopaths, people high in this trait see themselves as behaving in accord with an overall purpose. They don’t just lie for the sake of lying. Furthermore, their belief in the “dog-eat-dog world” may not be all that accurate. Whatever success they achieve is “conditional and, on average, modest” (p. 15). Their treatment of other people eventually creates a host of negative consequences. Even if they recognize that they're making their followers miserable, they don’t act to change it, showing just how much potential they have for “cruelty and cowardice” (p. 15).

To sum up., the study of Machiavellianism is hardly an uplifting one, given the many unpleasant implications it carries with it for understanding human motivation. However, by gaining insight into the risks their personalities and leadership styles carry with them, the U. Alabama study shows that maybe, after all, nice people finish more ahead than we may realize.