The dark side of leadership, part 3: Machiavellianism

The calculating colleague tends to rise. Their team partly sees through it.

This is the final part of a series on the "dark triad" of personality traits at work. Part 1 looked at narcissism, which people show off and which helps them get chosen as leaders without making them lead better. Part 2 looked at psychopathy, which people hide and which goes with charm but poor teamwork. This part looks at the third trait, Machiavellianism, and then at what the three have in common.

A word on the label

Machiavellianism takes its name from Niccolò Machiavelli, the Renaissance writer on power. In psychology it describes a cool, calculating willingness to manipulate others to get one's own way. As with the other two traits, the research measures an everyday trait in ordinary people, not a diagnosis.

The label is also debated. Some researchers argue that the standard questionnaires for Machiavellianism largely measure the same thing as those for psychopathy. Others argue the two are distinct. A recent study, described below, suggests they look alike on paper but different in daily life.

What it looks like

The classic research was published in 1970. In a series of laboratory games, people who scored high on Machiavellianism lied and bluffed more, and manipulated others more, and they did so more successfully than people who scored low. They were also more emotionally detached, a pattern the researchers called the "cool syndrome".

Not the same as psychopathy

One recent study suggests the difference from psychopathy lies in impulse control. The 2026 study tracked 317 adults in Poland every evening for 30 days. On standard personality tests, Machiavellianism and psychopathy overlapped by more than 70%. In daily behaviour, the overlap fell to about 16%. Machiavellian days involved keeping a low profile to get one's way. Psychopathic days involved losing control. The authors link psychopathy to poor impulse control, and Machiavellianism to strategic restraint.

My reading is that this is what makes the trait hard to spot at work. The psychopathic colleague eventually loses control. The Machiavellian colleague waits.

It helps people climb

Machiavellianism appears to help careers. A study of nearly 800 German workers in their late twenties and early thirties compared the three traits. Machiavellianism was linked to holding a leadership position and to career satisfaction. Narcissism was linked to higher pay. Psychopathy was linked to worse career outcomes. The researchers concluded that whether the "bad guys" get ahead depends on the type of dark trait.

But it costs the organisation

The organisation pays for it. In 2012, researchers combined 245 samples, covering almost 44,000 people, on the dark triad at work. Machiavellianism went with slightly lower job performance and noticeably more counterproductive behaviour, such as theft, sabotage and mistreating colleagues. Unlike narcissism and psychopathy, whose effects changed with a person's level of authority, Machiavellianism's negative effects held in every condition the researchers tested.

The ethics that do not land

Teams seem to sense it. In two studies published in 2012, leaders who behaved ethically raised their teams' engagement, which in turn raised initiative and reduced counterproductive behaviour. When the leaders were highly Machiavellian, the same ethical behaviour had a weaker effect. The researchers argue that people can partly detect when a leader's public ethics do not match their private ones.

How it shows in conversation

The trait may also show in what people talk about. In a 2026 study of 516 adults, Machiavellianism was the only dark trait uniquely linked to gossiping to gather and confirm information. Psychopathy, by contrast, was most linked to gossip meant to harm. The study relied on people's own reports and shows a link, not a cause.

What the three have in common

Across the series, the three traits share one pattern: the person with the trait may gain, and the cost falls on others.

• Narcissism is shown off. It helps people get chosen as leaders, but their teams share less information and results are no better, and sometimes worse.
• Psychopathy is hidden. It goes with charm and strategic flair, but poor teamwork, and it is only weakly linked to reaching the top.
• Machiavellianism is restrained. It goes with holding leadership positions, and with more counterproductive behaviour wherever it is found.

The research also offers some hope. Narcissism tempered by humility helped teams in one large study, and, as part 1 noted, a study found that feeling included predicted a fall in narcissism over time. The traits are tendencies, not fates.

What this is costing you

None of these studies looked at your organisation, so applying them is my own step. Some of these patterns may be familiar where you work:

• decisions that seem to have been made before the meeting;
• information that reaches some people early and others never;
• a leader whose ethics sound right but whose team does not believe them;
• a colleague who always knows what is going on, and always seems to benefit.

These patterns have many causes; they describe situations to fix, not people to label.

The cost is rarely visible on the day. My expectation is that it shows up in trust, in misconduct that nobody reports and in good people who leave.

Questions worth asking

A few honest questions show how much this applies to you.

• Are important decisions in your organisation made in the meeting, or before it?
• Who controls the flow of information, and do they share it or trade it?
• When a leader talks about values, does their team believe them?
• What do you reward: people who get results openly, or people who get them quietly?

What you can do this week

Everything in this section is a suggestion of mine, drawn from the research rather than tested by it. Several apply to all three traits in the series.

Suggestion

If you lead a team or sit on a board

• Make decisions in the open. Record who decided what, and why, so private deals have less room.
• Share information widely. Send important information to everyone who needs it at the same time, rather than through a few people.
• Use structured selection. In hiring and promotion, ask every candidate the same questions, ask for specific examples and check them with people who worked for the candidate.
• Ask the people below. Include the views of a leader's team, not only their peers and bosses, in every leadership review.
• Watch for undermining. Take reports of rule-breaking and undermining seriously, even when they concern someone who is doing well.

Suggestion

For yourself

• Notice the trade. When someone offers you information in exchange for something, ask why it is not being shared openly.
• Check what people do, not what they say. Judge colleagues on their actions over time, not on their statements about values.
• Look at yourself. Ask whether you ever hold back information to gain an advantage, and what would happen if you shared it.

Suggestion

At home

These are ideas of mine, not tested with children.

• Talk about fair play. When a child wins by a trick, talk about whether it was fair to the others.
• Praise honesty. Notice and praise moments when a child tells the truth even though it costs them.

A closing word

This series has looked at three traits that can help people rise while the cost falls on the people around them. None of them is a diagnosis, and all of us have some of each. The practical answer is the same for all three: choose leaders on evidence rather than presence, ask the people who work for them, make decisions in the open and share information widely. Those habits leave less room for the dark side of leadership, whoever has it.

Sources

• Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.
• Walczak, D., Rogoza, R., & Jones, D. N. (2026). The (in)distinguishability of Machiavellianism and psychopathy? Discovering the daily dynamics. Journal of Research in Personality. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2026.104710
• Miller, J. D., Hyatt, C. S., Maples-Keller, J. L., Carter, N. T., & Lynam, D. R. (2017). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism: A distinction without a difference? Journal of Personality, 85(4), 439 to 453. doi:10.1111/jopy.12251
• 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 Psychological and Personality Science, 7(2), 113 to 121. doi:10.1177/1948550615609735
• O'Boyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557 to 579. doi:10.1037/a0025679
• Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work engagement and Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 35 to 47. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4
• Davis, A. C., Vaillancourt, T., & Arnocky, S. (2026). The Dark Tetrad traits differentially predict gossip frequency and motives. Behavioral Sciences. doi:10.3390/bs16091556