A newly published meta-analysis involving over half a million participants has shed disturbing new light on how Machiavellian leaders affect their workplaces. Contrary to the popular belief that such cunning, manipulative leadership either guarantees success or spells disaster, this massive international study, appearing in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, finds much more complex and nuanced realities. While Machiavellian leaders consistently create harmful environments for their followers, their own professional fate depends heavily on context rather than clear-cut penalties or rewards psypost.org.
For Thai readers, the revelation is significant: Thai businesses, government offices, and educational institutions—many of which value hierarchy and deference to authority—may be more susceptible than they realize to the subtle harms Machiavellian leaders inflict. Understanding what distinguishes these individuals, what makes them thrive, and how to protect oneself or an organization from their worst excesses is as relevant to a Thai boardroom or ministry as it is anywhere in the world.
The new research, led by a PhD candidate from The University of Alabama along with collaborators across multiple fields, analyzed 163 independent samples from a diverse workforce pool totalling 510,925 people. It examined 15 leadership-related outcomes, including leadership effectiveness, employee well-being, organizational citizenship, and workplace deviance. The findings are sobering: Machiavellian leaders—characterized by cynicism, manipulativeness, and disregard for conventional morality—are not only perceived as inauthentic and inconsiderate, but their followers report much poorer experiences on almost every measure of workplace well-being. These subordinates suffer from lower job satisfaction, more frequent abusive supervision, greater burnout, strained relationships, and increased workplace rule-breaking and sabotage.
One of the most striking findings was that Machiavellianism explained nearly half of the variance in perceived relationship quality and more than a quarter of the variance in abusive supervision. In essence, if someone leads with Machiavellian traits, their followers are almost guaranteed to feel the pain in terms of both productivity and psychological distress.
The study’s author explained: “On average and as indexed by multiple metrics, Machiavellians are seen as abusive and without any intention to develop or proactively lead followers, and they may even stand in the way of performance by providing directions ambiguous enough that they can take credit for wins while blaming followers for failures.” psypost.org.
Although Machiavellian leaders are often viewed negatively by those beneath them, it turns out that they are not consistently punished for their style. Neither are they reliably promoted nor sidelined. Their career outcomes hinge on how well they navigate organizational politics and manage the perceptions of superiors and subordinates alike. One surprise was that high-tenure Machiavellian leaders may even come to be seen as “ethical,” possibly because they’ve managed to reshape office norms or convince others of their worldview.
Another key finding challenges the simplistic assumption that Machiavellianism is always hidden or that such individuals act beneath a mask of social acceptability. In fact, the data indicates that many Machiavellian leaders openly reject traditional ethics and self-identify as pragmatic realists in a “dog-eat-dog” world. This creates a grim paradox: while they may admit to being manipulative and inconsiderate, their vision can nevertheless win support or at least acquiescence—especially if the organization prizes results above relationships.
The social consequences, as detailed in the study, reverberate widely. Leaders with these dark traits undermine not just trust but also the voluntary, citizenship-oriented behaviors—such as helping colleagues or going beyond the call of duty—that are crucial for cohesive and innovative organizations. The effect can be particularly toxic in group-oriented cultures like Thailand’s, where face, harmony, and hierarchy structure daily interactions and where employees may be especially reluctant to challenge authority directly.
In terms of both recognizing and managing such individuals, the study’s lead author offers a dual warning: For those in power, engaging one’s own Machiavellian side is “like playing with fire”—it risks alienating followers without necessarily delivering long-term success. For others forced to navigate these power dynamics, awareness is key. Consistent cynicism, disdain for conventional virtue, and a tendency to frame kindness as naivete are all red flags. Pragmatic advice: maintain formality, avoid attempts at friendship, and always back disagreements with data and logic rather than appeals to ideals, as Machiavellian individuals dismiss idealism as weakness.
Should a Thai professional find themselves under an abusive Machiavellian boss, the expert recommendation is unequivocal: Leave the environment as soon as possible. If that’s not feasible in the short term, minimize personal interaction and keep everything strictly work-related. “Do not ever let them think you lack devotion: they will assume that you are lazy and selfish, so you do not want to give them ‘proof’ of either,” the study’s author advised.
One interesting implication for Thai organizations is the finding that Machiavellian leaders are far from isolated cases; rather, dark traits form a broad spectrum, and their negative effects can remain hidden from peers and superiors while inflicting corrosive harm on subordinates. Only anonymous feedback from those on the receiving end can reliably expose the full extent of such leaders’ impact—a potential call to action for Thai HR and organizational development professionals. This aligns with the growing adoption of 360-degree feedback and anonymous surveys in some Thai firms, though cultural hesitancy remains a barrier.
Globally and in Thailand, discussions often conflate Machiavellianism with psychopathy, but the authors are clear: while both carry risks, Machiavellianism is risk-averse and emotionally grim, while psychopathy tends toward thrill-seeking and charisma. Tactics that may restrain or appease one can backfire on the other, underscoring the need for refined organizational psychology tools that go beyond crude labels.
But the authors of this meta-analysis stress that their results are conditional and context-specific. In competitive sectors, some Machiavellian leaders may help organizations through turbulent times or improve financial results—at least in the short term. Yet the average experience remains negative, and so organizations must “separate the grain from the chaff.”
For Thailand’s work culture, these findings are a reminder that respect for hierarchy should not blind employers to the dangers of unchecked Machiavellianism. Thai folklore and proverbs abound with warnings about false friends and cunning manipulators (“ศัตรูที่เห็นหน้า ดีกว่ามิตรที่ปิดบัง,” loosely translatable as “an open enemy is better than a hidden friend”), echoing international research. The challenge, as with so many global best practices adapted to local context, lies in balancing face-saving decorum with the imperative to root out workplace toxicity.
Looking ahead, the study’s main author points to ongoing international research into how organizations can monitor and reduce “dark” personality traits among both leaders and ordinary employees—without losing sight of the occasional strategic advantage such traits may confer. For Thai education and HR professionals, this work suggests investing more in psychological awareness and anonymous feedback systems, as well as in training leaders to recognize their own vulnerabilities and dark tendencies.
As the global workforce continues to change, and as Thai businesses and governmental institutions pursue innovation and international best practices, understanding the shadowy side of leadership may prove just as important as cultivating charisma and vision. The advice for Thai workers and organizations is clear: Develop systems for honest feedback, prioritize leader self-awareness, and do not ignore the warning signs when they appear. After all, as the research underscores, the costs of Machiavellian leadership are rarely borne by the leader alone, but by everyone around them.
For further reading and sources, see the original report in PsyPost and the Journal of Organizational Behavior.