Authentic Leadership and Machiavellian Attitudes
In today’s episode of the Executives After Hours VBlog series, we talk about Machiavellianism and authentic leadership. Before we dive into the topic, please remember to head over to Amazon and grab a copy of The Crucible’s Gift: 5 Lessons from Authentic Leaders Who Thrive in Adversity and learn why leadership experts recommend this book.
Ok, on today’s episode we look at the article titled, Are Authentic Leaders Always Moral? The Role
of Machiavellianism in the Relationship Between Authentic Leadership and Morality, by Dr. Sen Sendjaya, Dr. Andre Pekerti, Dr. Charmine Härtel, Dr. Giles Hirst, and Dr. Ivan Butarbutar. This article appreares in the Journal of Business Ethics in September, 2014.
THE WHAT
The big question the authors aim to answer is, do Machiavellian attitudes impact the role of moral reasoning on authentic leaders, and in turn impact moral actions of those leaders? Moral reasoning is the process of an individual internally making moral judgments on a moral issue, whereas moral actions are the fulfillment of the reasoning. Arguably, an individual’s moral reasoning leads to moral actions. However, life is rarely that straightforward, and we face a number of morally grey moments where we have weight-up our own needs and wants for those of your colleagues or organization. Enter Machiavellian attitudes. Machiavellian attitudes are those moments when you look out for your best interest over others.
In this study, the authors were particularly interested in the effect of Machiavellian attitudes on the relationship between moral reasoning and authentic leadership and authentic leadership and moral attitudes.
THE WHO
70 managers (28 females and 42 males) of a large public organization in Australia are utilized in this research. The average employment at this organization is only 2-years, half had a post-graduate degree, and 40% received a bachelors. Overall, an educated bunch, but not a lot of time at the organization.
THE HOW
Like many studies in academia, they used surveys to measure moral reasoning, authentic leadership, and Machiavellian attitudes, however, they took a different approach to measure moral action; thus this study used a mixed method approach. To measure moral action the researchers used a focus group, a simulation, and a role-playing exercise to evaluate a leaders moral actions. This may have caused some problems, due to the way it was measured or evaluated. There is a lot more subjectivity in assessing one’s moral action, whereas the other concepts are self-response.
THE SO WHAT
Drum roll, please!!!! The first explored relationship is moral reasoning’s relationship with authentic leadership, and what they found was there was none…….until you factor in Machiavellian attitudes. When a leader is high in Machiavellian attitudes, moral reasoning has a negative relationship towards authentic leadership, and you guessed it, when Machiavellian attitudes are low in a leader there is a positive relationship towards authentic leadership. What does this mean? When a leader is behaving authentically, and focusing on the greater good, they are more likely to engage in moral reasoning.
The second explored relationship is authentic leadership’s role in predicting moral actions, and like the previous exploration, this to had no relationship until…….you guessed it, you factor in Machiavellian attitudes. Similar to above, leaders who espoused lower levels of Machiavellian attitudes, were more likely to engage in moral actions, whereas, leaders who were high in Machiavellian were less likely to engage in moral actions. What does this mean? Pretty much the same as above, when a leader is behaving authentically and focusing on the greater good, they are more likely to engage in moral actions.
Finally, the authors are curious if authentic leadership played a part in mediating the relationship between moral reasoning and moral action, or if Machiavellian attitudes have an indirect effect on moral reasoning or moral action. The results here are no. What does this mean? There is a breakdown in the proposed relationships, and further research needs to be conducted….probably not what the researchers are looking for.
THE WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS
This research highlights a couple of exciting things. One, and maybe not a big surprise to you, when you are out for yourself to get ahead, you begin to be morally ambiguous. Meaning, it is easy to justify cutting corners, telling half-truths, or back-stabbing a colleague, if it helps you move your career. I can see how in the moment a leader, especially when they are early in their career, may fall into this trap of compromising moral alignment for the betterment of their career. I am not saying to avoid trying to put yourself in positions to help your career prospects, just not at the cost or your moral compass.
WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE
Gaining a deeper understanding of how Machiavellian attitudes impact an authentic leader is fascinating. For many of us, especially those who are raised in an uber-competitive culture, it is easy to think of ‘what is best for me’. What I would love to see is how work history and position in an organization impacts an authentic leader. Do leaders grow into their authentic self? Do leaders have a moment that makes them reflect on how they have risen to a particular position in an organization? Can creating a practice of compassion in a workplace mute those who are trying to get ahead at the cost of morals?
There are many ways to go with researching the role of Machiavellian attitudes and authentic leadership, but what is for sure based on this study, when Machiavellian attitudes are high, a leader will find the grey area in their moral compass.
Until next week,
James Kelley, PhD.
james@drjameskelley.com
