Leading Machiavellians on the road to better organizational behavior

Abstract

Purpose

Studies highlighting negative behavioral influences of Machiavellians are plentiful; however, those prescribing their management are scarce. Machiavellians are intelligent, adaptable and resourceful people with negative, self-serving and unethical persona traits. Their abundance in organizations poses a challenge for managers in minimizing negative consequences of Machiavellian's manipulative behaviors and tap into their true potential. Leadership can play a crucial role in this regard. This purpose of this paper is to investigate the moderating effects of transformational leadership (TFL) versus transactional leadership (TSL) styles on the relationship between subordinates' Machiavellianism and their organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). The aim was to highlight the style that better adept in managing high-Mach subordinates.

Design/methodology/approach

This cross-sectional study used multiple surveys administered to 90 managers and their 269 subordinates from 56 organizations. Multiple regression was used for testing and hypothesize linear and supplementary nonlinear relationships between the study variables.

Findings

After a detailed data analysis, authors posit that, as compared to TFL, the TSL style is better suited for managing Machiavellian subordinates.

Practical implications

By employing transactional tactics, leaders can reign in the divergent behavior of Machiavellians, thus, transforming them into useful organizational assets.

Originality/value

This study expands on limited body of knowledge on managing Machiavellians. It advocates using TSL for improving the OCB of Machiavellians while countering their CWBs. Furthermore, this study contributes to transactional/transformational theories as it lends credence to the situational theory of leadership.

Citation

Shah, S.I., Shahjehan, A. and Afsar, B. (2022), "Leading Machiavellians on the road to better organizational behavior", Personnel Review, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 1604-1626. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2020-0304