How does Machiavellianism affect human behaviour?
I. Introduction
Studying human personality is very important in predicting the consequent behaviour of employees in an organization (Robbins & Coulter, 20011). Personality, as described by Robbins et.al (20011) is “the unique combination of emotional, thought and behavioural patterns that affect how a person reacts to a situation” (p. 307). Through predicting the different human behaviours, the organization find ways in dealing with them, may it be positive or negative, that need a certain course of action, each unique from the other. On another view, it is equally essential that as managers, we learn the relationship between employees’ behaviour and their performance which greatly affects the organization, in general. More so, managers should also possess the vital and necessary characteristics in order to effectively view, communicate with and lead their subordinates.
We learn from the book of Robbins & Coulter (20011) that there are other personality traits that employees possess other than the five established, according to research, Big five model which includes Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional stability and Openness to experience. These additional personality traits include Locus of control, Machiavellianism, Self-esteem and Self-monitoring. In this paper, the writer will focus on Machiavellianism—on how it affects human behaviour. This paper will focus on two major points of Machiavelli’s stand which are the means and the ends. Moreover, this paper will focus on the effects of Machiavelli’s insights on managers acting as leaders. Although managers and employees, the writer concedes, that both play important roles for the improvement and development of the organization, the writer deem it necessary to focus first on managers’ rather than on its constituents and members because when we talk about Machiavellianism, managers are more prone to this kind of “special personality” which is why Machiavelli’s book “The Prince” talked
Studying human personality is very important in predicting the consequent behaviour of employees in an organization (Robbins & Coulter, 20011). Personality, as described by Robbins et.al (20011) is “the unique combination of emotional, thought and behavioural patterns that affect how a person reacts to a situation” (p. 307). Through predicting the different human behaviours, the organization find ways in dealing with them, may it be positive or negative, that need a certain course of action, each unique from the other. On another view, it is equally essential that as managers, we learn the relationship between employees’ behaviour and their performance which greatly affects the organization, in general. More so, managers should also possess the vital and necessary characteristics in order to effectively view, communicate with and lead their subordinates.
We learn from the book of Robbins & Coulter (20011) that there are other personality traits that employees possess other than the five established, according to research, Big five model which includes Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional stability and Openness to experience. These additional personality traits include Locus of control, Machiavellianism, Self-esteem and Self-monitoring. In this paper, the writer will focus on Machiavellianism—on how it affects human behaviour. This paper will focus on two major points of Machiavelli’s stand which are the means and the ends. Moreover, this paper will focus on the effects of Machiavelli’s insights on managers acting as leaders. Although managers and employees, the writer concedes, that both play important roles for the improvement and development of the organization, the writer deem it necessary to focus first on managers’ rather than on its constituents and members because when we talk about Machiavellianism, managers are more prone to this kind of “special personality” which is why Machiavelli’s book “The Prince” talked
References: Ghosh, D. and Grain, To (1996), Experimental investigation of ethical standards and perceived probability of audit on intentional noncompliance, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8: 1-18. Grams, W. and Rogers, R. (1990), Power and personality: effects of Machiavellianism, need for approval, and motivation on use of influence tactics, Journal of General Psychology, 117: 71-82. Jain, K. And Bearden, J. N. 2011. Machiavellianism and Overconfidence Jay, A.: 1994, Jones, T. (1991), “Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue contingent model”, Academy of Management Review, Vol Majumdar, Shyamal. 2006. Machiavelli and the Art of Management. Retrieved from: http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/feb/09man.htm Miesing, E and Preble, J Rayburn, M. and Rayburn, L. (1996), Relationship between Machiavellianism and type A personality and ethical orientation, Journal of Business Ethics, 15: 1209-1219. Shafer, W. AND Simmons, R. 2007. Social responsibility, Machiavellianism and tax avoidance: A study of Hong Kong tax professionals Rayburn, M Paulhus, D.L. and Williams, K.M. 2002. The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and Psychopathy: Journal of Research and Personality. Vol. 36. P. 556-563/ Ronald M Robbins, S. & Coulter, M. (2011). Management. Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd. Uday , M. 2008. Machiavellianism: A Bane or a Boon? Last Retrieved: October 1, 2012. http://www.indianmba.com/Faculty_Column/FC853/fc853.html Complete Guide to Ethics Management: An Ethics Toolkit for Managers