Editorial summary. This is our text summary of an article published by sajip. Charts, figures, and the author’s full voice are at the original — read it there .
Licence. The original is licensed under CC BY 4.0. This page adapts it: the summary and analysis are ours, not the authors’.
Editorial verdict
Methodologically adequate but interpret with caution — the counterintuitive positive relationships between destructive leadership variables and organisational cohesiveness suggest defensive cohesion dynamics worth investigating, but the cross-sectional design, convenience sampling, and low R² for the primary outcome (9.6%) substantially limit causal inference.
Executive summary
This study examines how Machiavellianism and abuse of power predict organisational cohesiveness among academic staff in higher education institutions (HEIs), with toxic leadership positioned as a mediating variable. Drawing on survey data from 665 academic staff at public universities in Indonesia and Malaysia, the authors employ Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) via SmartPLS to test a series of direct and indirect path relationships. Contrary to theoretical expectations, the findings reveal that toxic leadership, Machiavellianism, and abuse of power each exert statistically significant positive — rather than negative — direct effects on organisational cohesiveness. The authors interpret this as evidence of 'defensive cohesion,' wherein employees bond together as a collective response to oppressive leadership conditions. Toxic leadership is confirmed as a partial mediator between both Machiavellianism and organisational cohesiveness, and between abuse of power and organisational cohesiveness. However, the model explains only 9.6% of variance in organisational cohesiveness, indicating substantial unexplained variance. The study calls for institutional oversight mechanisms, whistleblowing protections, and leadership training in ethical governance within HEIs.
Key insights
- 1Toxic leadership exhibited a statistically significant positive effect on organisational cohesiveness (β = 0.156, p = 0.032), contradicting the dominant theoretical assumption that destructive leadership invariably reduces group cohesion — interpreted by the authors as 'defensive cohesion' among staff facing oppressive conditions.
- 2Machiavellianism and abuse of power together explain 66.4% of the variance in toxic leadership (R² = 0.664), indicating these dark personality and behavioural constructs are strong structural precursors to toxic leadership manifestation in HEI contexts.
- 3The model's low explanatory power for organisational cohesiveness (R² = 0.096) signals that the three focal predictors account for only a minor portion of what drives group cohesion, implying dominant factors outside the model — such as institutional culture, task interdependence, or peer relationships — remain unexamined.
Practical takeaways
- The positive association between destructive leadership variables and cohesiveness is framed by the authors as defensive group bonding rather than a functional or desirable state, indicating that surface-level cohesion metrics may mask underlying psychological harm and require contextual interpretation.
- The study identifies a structural pathway from Machiavellianism and abuse of power through toxic leadership to cohesiveness outcomes, suggesting that institutional intervention at the level of power accountability structures — rather than individual leadership behaviour alone — may be necessary to address the root drivers of toxic dynamics in HEIs.
Frameworks mentioned
Dark Triad
A personality constellation comprising narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, used in the study to contextualise Machiavellianism as a socially aversive trait linked to destructive leadership.
360-Degree Review
Referenced in the practical implications section as a recommended feedback mechanism allowing academic staff to evaluate leadership behaviours in a multidirectional, retaliation-free manner.
References
- Whitton and Fletcher (2014).Group Environment Questionnaire.
- Schmidt (2008).Toxic Leadership Scale.
- Dahling et al. (2009).Machiavellian Personality Scale.
- Lee-Chai et al. (2001).Misuse of Power Scale.
Source & Provenance
sajip
Budiman Budiman, Komarudin Komarudin, Mohd N. Selamat, Kusumasari K.H. Darmayanti, Siti D. Fakhriya, Jesyia Meyrinda, Eko O. Hadinata, Baharudin Baharudin
September 1, 2026
Research Study
Asia-Pacific
Original source metadata is preserved. AI analysis is generated separately.
Like this? Get the Monday Decision Brief — free, every week.
No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Rate this article
Want the full article? Read it at the original source — free, no paywall.
Read original article