Machiavellianism in psychology. Machiavellianism: a psychological property of a personality and a methodology for its study

the image of political behavior, political actions that disregard the norms of morality, in which, in order to achieve the goals set, any means are considered applicable, even the most treacherous, insidious and cruel. The term is associated with the name of N. Machiavelli.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

MACHIAVELISM

an image, a scheme of political behavior that disregards the norms of morality in order to achieve political goals. The term is associated with the name of the Italian politician and writer I. Machiavelli (1469-1527), an adherent of a strong state power. Distinctive feature Machiavellianism, its basis is the thesis "the end justifies the means", when for the sake of achieving the set goals any means are considered justified and acceptable, including treachery, deceit, cruelty, deceit of a political opponent.

The main mechanism of the struggle for power and its implementation is force. It is strength that makes it possible to guarantee the stability of power, and when it is lost, it is difficult to return power. The basis of the sovereign's power is good laws and good army. A passion for conquest is a natural and common thing, and "strong and resolute power will never allow a split." Machiavelli identifies four ways of acquiring power by the sovereign: by the grace of fate, personal prowess, through crime, and by virtue of the goodwill of his fellow citizens. Fate plays a big role in people's lives, but the role of people's actions themselves is huge in it, therefore, "in reality, whoever relied less on the mercy of fate, he stayed in power longer." In the first case, power is easy to acquire, but it is difficult to keep it, because the rulers cannot and do not know how to stay in power. Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Nowadays, the concept of "Machiavellianism" is often used in various humanities. Machiavellianism as scientific category widely used in foreign psychological research, but practically not used in domestic psychology (probably the only exception is the attempt by S.L. Bratchenko to use an early version of the questionnaire, the Mash-II scale, on a Russian sample of subjects [Bratchenko, 1997]). American scientists conducted a content analysis of N. Machiavelli's treatise "The Sovereign" and based on it created a psychological questionnaire. It is called "Mack-scale" and is actively used in Western social psychology and personality psychology. With its help, very interesting results were obtained.

Western psychologists call Machiavellianism the tendency of a person to manipulate other people in interpersonal relationships. It's about about such cases when the subject hides his true intentions; at the same time, with the help of false distractions, he achieves that the partner, without realizing it, changes his original goals. "Machiavellianism is commonly defined as the tendency of a person in interpersonal situations to manipulate others in subtle, subtle, or non-physically aggressive ways, such as flattery, deceit, bribery, or intimidation." Discussed in a slightly different way psychological property personality in another work “In this review article, we define Machiavellianism as a strategy social behavior, which includes the manipulation of others for personal gain, often contrary to their self-interest. Machiavellianism should be seen as quantitative characteristic. Everyone in varying degrees capable of manipulative behavior, but some people are more prone and capable of it than others.

I will give a simple example of the Machiavellian strategy of behavior in family relationships. The kid asks his father to show how to assemble a car from the details of a children's designer. Father shows. Some time passes, and the son asks the question again. The father answers. Then another question follows, then another and another. Finally, the father breaks down and assembles the car himself. The son is triumphant: he did not intend to understand the details of the designer, and now he is pleased that he made his father do the work for him. According to R. Christie, one of the creators of the Mak-scale, and his student F. Geis. Machiavellianism is a psychological syndrome based on a combination of interrelated cognitive, motivational and behavioral characteristics. The main psychological components of Machiavellianism as a personality trait are: 1) belief subject in that That when communicating with other people, they can and even need to be manipulated; 2) skills, specific manipulation skills. The latter include the ability to convince others, to understand their intentions and reasons for their actions.

It is interesting that Machiavellian beliefs and skills may not coincide and be realized in behavior “autonomously”. As shown in studies on the development of Machiavellian personality in ontogeny, some children adopt a system of beliefs from their parents that does not directly but indirectly affect their behavior. Others directly copy successful ways of manipulating people from their parents, but do not adopt Machiavellian beliefs from them. Machiavellianism as a personality characteristic as a whole reflects the subject's disbelief that most people can be trusted, that they are altruistic, independent, and have a strong will. High scores on the Mac-scale positively correlate with externality, suspicion, hostility. Such subjects are more effective in deceiving others, in interpersonal communication they use flattery more often and, in general, are more successful in influencing other people. There is a reasonable assumption about the similarity of Machiavellian scores in married couples. Machiavellianism does not correlate with intelligence, rational attitudes, and such personality traits like the need for achievement and the level of anxiety.

People who demonstrate high scores on the Mac-scale, when coming into contact with others, tend to stay emotionally aloof, apart, focus on the problem, and not on the interlocutor, and distrust others. Such subjects, in contrast to subjects with low scores have more frequent but less deep contact with their friends and neighbors. For example, one study found an inverse relationship between the level of Machiavellianism and empathy shown by students when giving advice and helping each other. Christie and Geis called high levels of Machiavellianism "emotional coldness syndrome" because social withdrawal is a major characteristic people like that.

However, the results of the experiments clearly show that, unlike people with low Machiavellian scores, people with high values scores on the Mac scale are more communicative and persuasive, regardless of whether they tell the interlocutor the truth or lie. Compared to subjects who score low on the Machiavellian scale, subjects with high scores are more accurate and honest in their perceptions and understanding of themselves and others. It is also important to note that they usually receive low scores on the social desirability method. In communication, Machiavellians, as a rule, are subject-oriented: in social interactions they are more purposeful, competitive, and focused primarily on achieving a goal, rather than interacting with partners (Domelsmith, Dietch, 1978).

In conclusion, I will summarize psychological characteristics, which Western scholars use to describe a strong type of Machiavellian personality: intelligent, courageous, ambitious, dominant, persistent, selfish - and a weak type: cowardly, indecisive, susceptible to influence, honest, sentimental, reliable. Any pronounced Machiavellian wants to look in the eyes of others, for example, smart and unselfish. Naturally, in communicative situations, they try to show themselves just like that. People who score low on the Poppy Scale are actually more likely to positive features, such as honesty and reliability, but pronounced Machiavellians have great skill and behavioral skills to hide a lack of such personality traits.

APPROBATION OF THE RUSSIAN VERSION OF THE METHODOLOGY

The study consisted of six stages and was conducted in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Smolensk, Samara, Tolyatti and Yaroslavl. At each stage of the experiment, the questionnaire was given to the subjects along with other methods that reveal those personality traits that, according to the results of research by Western psychologists, distinguish people with a greater and lesser degree of Machiavellian orientation. The choice of methods was determined by the desire to achieve the construct validity of the Mac scale. The subjects were students, engineers, military, university professors, employees, clients of the employment service. On the first At the stage of the study, translation from English and Russian-language adaptation of the fourth version of the "Questionnaire for Machiavellianism" - the Mach-IV scale was carried out. After the translation, the approbation stage followed: the questionnaire was filled in by 195 subjects. Consistency of 20 points of the scale according to Cronbach's coefficient a turned out to be low:

a=0.523. Computer statistical analysis of the results made it possible to identify statements, estimates for which in most influenced the decrease in the coefficient. In particular, according to the answers to the statement “You cannot forgive a person who lies to another”, it turned out to be impossible to differentiate the opinions of Russian subjects: the vast majority of them do not agree with this. For the Russian version of the Mak-scale, such a modification of the statement turned out to be more acceptable: "You cannot justify a person who lies to another in order to achieve personal goals." Similarly, for reasons of cultural adaptation, the statement "Barnum was wrong when he said that every minute a simpleton is born" had to be replaced with this: "Wrong are those who think that most people are simpletons who are easily fooled."

Starting from the second stage of the study, all subjects anonymously completed the final 20-item questionnaire below.

On the second stage, the study involved 361 people (162 women and 199 men) aged 17 to 53 years ( average age M=26.13, standard deviation 8=9.65; median Me=21). They filled out a modified version of the Mac Scale and the Personality Differential.

On the third 175 people (92 women and 83 men) aged 17 to 56 years (M=25.68, 8=8.38; Me=23) took part in the study. They also anonymously filled in the Mc-scale and T. Leary's method of diagnosing interpersonal relations.

On the fourth 174 people (70 women and 104 men) aged 30 to 52 participated in the study. In addition to the Mak-scale, they filled out the methodology for diagnosing the orientation of the personality of B. Bass. With its help, psychologists identify three types of focus: on oneself, on communication (on Others) and on the task (business). In addition, in order to identify the tendency to give socially desirable responses, the subjects filled out a self-assessment questionnaire of approval motivation by D. Marlow and D. Crown.

On the fifth At the stage, 42 students (half from Smolensk, the other half from Yaroslavl) completed the Poppy Questionnaire with an interval of two weeks.

On the sixth the final stage of the study was the analysis of the summary table of results.

RESULTS AND ITS DISCUSSION

Main result first stage of the study is the appearance of the Russian version of the Mach-IV scale - a questionnaire consisting of twenty items.

In experiments second stage for the entire sample (361 people), the consistency of the points of the Mac-scale according to the Cronbach coefficient was a = 0.719. The following total indicators were obtained according to the Mak-scale: М=77.51, 8=12.73; Me=77; min=47, max=116 (theoretically possible range of the scale is determined by the range from 20 to 140). However, the averages hide gender differences: the estimates of 199 men (M = 80.54, S = 13.27) are statistically significantly higher than (t = 5.01, p< 0.001) оценки 162 женщин (М = 73.78, S = 12.03).

Experiments have shown that the total scores of Machiavellianism have a negative correlation with the “Score” factor according to the “Personal Differential” (r = -0.461, p< 0.001). Оказалось, что испытуемые с превышающими медиану показателями по Мак-шкале ниже оценили по «Личностному дифференциалу» нравственные качества своей личности, чем те, у кого Мак-показатели меньше медианы. Это относится к представителям обоих полов, хотя средние значения женщин стабильно превышают показатели мужчин (мужчины, фактор «Оценка»: соответственно М=8.58, 8=5.76 и М=12.06, 8=4.69; женщины: М=12.84, 8=5.08 и М=16.04, 8=3.7). Отрицательная корреляция между «Оценкой» и Мак-показателями может означать, что испытуемые, анонимно признающие наличие у себя макиавеллистских установок или способов поведения, понимают, что последние несовместимы с социально одобряемыми нравственными качествами личности. Вполне возможно (но в этом исследовании не доказано), что в их субъективной шкале ценностей порядочность, правдивость, доброжелательность и другие моральные категории занимают далеко не первые ранговые позиции. Другое possible explanation nature of the negative connection can be given if we remember that, as Western psychologists have shown, subjects with high scores on the Mac Scale are more accurate and honest in their perception and understanding not only of others, but also of themselves. In this case, the negative correlation of assessments with numerical indicators of the moral qualities of a person may be a reflection of the greater "realism" of such people, their honest and critical attitude towards themselves. However, so far both of these explanations are only hypothetical, requiring experimental verification.

Contrary to the assumption that there is a pronounced volitional principle in the personality of the “Machiavellians”, their tendency to dominate, rather than obey, when manipulating others in situations of interpersonal communication, the correlation coefficients between Mac indicators and the factors “Strength” and “Activity” according to the “Personal Differential” turned out to be negligible small and not statistically significant. Obviously, Machiavellian behavior in communicative situations does not imply brute pressure, authoritarian pressure on interlocutors, but more sophisticated and less noticeable ways for them to achieve personal goals.

Analysis of data obtained on third stage of the study, was carried out by dividing them into two groups: the answers of 87 people, whose indicators on the Mac scale were less than the median (Me = 77), and 88 subjects with Mac indicators equal to or greater than the median value. The answers of these groups were compared with the data on the T. Leary questionnaire. It turned out that subjects with high and low scores on the Mac scale significantly differed in two factors of the Leary questionnaire - suspiciousness and altruism. Naturally, the subjects with high level of Machiavellianism, suspicion (negativism, vindictiveness, criticism of both social phenomena and people) is higher:

M=4.94 and M=3.55; t=3.63, p< 0.001. В то же время альтруистичность (отзывчивость, бескорыстие, стремление к помощи и состраданию) у них ниже: М=4.52 и М=7,18; t=2.92, p < 0.004.

Analysis of results fourth the research stage was carried out in two directions: 1) comparison of the results of the Poppy questionnaire with the results of the methods of Bass and Marlow-Crown for the entire sample of subjects; 2) comparison of data of women and men, including comparative analysis the results of subjects with high and low scores on the Mak-scale.

Scores on the Mc-scale of 174 subjects correlate positively with the focus on one's self according to the Bass method (r=0.336) and negatively with the focus on communication with others (r=-0.30). These facts are consistent with the data of Western psychologists that subjects with high rates according to the Mac-scale in communicative situations, they tend to focus on themselves and the solution of their task, and not on the interlocutor. In addition, a negative correlation was found between Mac indicators and the propensity of the subjects to give socially desirable answers (r = -0.38). Foreign studies also note that, compared to subjects who scored low on the Machiavellian scale, subjects with high scores typically score low on the social desirability technique. A comparison of data from 104 men and 70 women found that the former had higher Machiavellian scores (M=78.44 and M=69.74; t=5.22, p< 0.001), Зато у женщин более выражена ориентация на общение по методике Басса (М=26.54 и М=24.41; t=2.13, p< 0.03) и на социально желательные ответы по методике Марлоу-Крауна (М=8.96 и М=0.24; t=2.51, р<0.01).

Now it is necessary to conduct a comparative analysis of the results of subjects with high and low scores on the Mak-scale. In other words, those with scores above and below the median: Me=69 (min=41, max=90) for the female sample, Me=79 (mirp46, max=112) for the male sample. For brevity, these two groups of subjects can be conditionally called "Machiavellian" and "non-Machiavellian".

According to the Bass method, non-Machiavellians have a more pronounced orientation towards communication than Machiavellians. This is also typical for women (M=28.29 and M=24.8; t=2.5, p< 0.02), и для мужчин (М=25.73 и М=23.21; t=2.25, p< 0.03). У мужчин-немакиавеллистов ниже показатели направленности на себя, собственное Я: М=24.02 и 1^27.67; t=-3.2, p< 0.02. А у мужчин-макиавеллистов в коммуникативных ситуациях в большей степени, чем у немакиавеллистов, проявляется тенденция скорее ориентироваться на свое Я, чем на общение с партнерами: М=27.67 и М=23.21; t=3.48, p< 0.001.

According to the Marlow-Crown method, non-Machiavellians are more likely than Machiavellians to give socially desirable answers (women: M=11.11 and M=9.37;

t=2.2, p< 0.03; мужчины: М=9.35 и М=7.9; t=2.32, p< 0.02). Как уже отмечалось выше, этот факт согласуется с результатами исследований зарубежных психологов .

Experiments carried out on fifth stage, showed that the retest reliability of the Mac-questionnaire according to the Spearman correlation coefficient r = 0.748. On the sixth stage, a final analysis of the results of 710 subjects who participated in the second, third and fourth stages of the study was carried out.

Age differences. The median value of the entire sample by age is 25 years. The scores on the Mak-scale of 355 young subjects aged 17 to 25 years significantly exceed the scores of 355 men and women of more mature age - from 26 to 56 years (M=79.28 and M=74.57; t=5.02, p< 0.001). Следовательно, у молодежи уровень макиавеллизма выше, чем у взрослых людей. Полученные на российской выборке данные подтверждают то, что уже давно известно в зарубежной психологии. В частности, Д.С. Уилсон с соавторами, ссылаясь на результаты многочисленных западных исследований, утверждает, что с подросткового возраста до поздней юности уровень макиавеллизма растет, а затем начинает снижаться .

Gender differences. At all stages of the study, the scores on the Mac-scale of the male part of the sample were statistically significantly higher than those of the female. This fact is also fully consistent with the results of research by Western psychologists.

Gender differences begin to appear in childhood, after the age of ten. Research by D.D. Braginski demonstrated significant differences in the manipulative tactics used by children of different sexes. Boys and girls with the same score on the Mac scale tend to use different tactics in the context of their assigned social roles. Machiavellian girls try to manipulate in an implicit way, presenting themselves in such a light that others think better of them. Machiavellian boys manipulate through directive, aggressive tactics. Non-Machiavellian girls unsuccessfully attempt to manipulate through aggressiveness, while non-Machiavellian boys are passive.

In adults, male Machiavellianism is qualitatively different from female both at the level of attitudes and at the level of specific behavior. This is manifested, in particular, in the readiness and tendency to self-disclosure in communication: both in specific statements containing information about personal life, and in the general predisposition to tell other people about oneself,

Psychological studies have shown that in men a high level of Machiavellianism correlates with closeness, and in women with a similar level, on the contrary, with openness. One of the reasons for this is that men's propensity to open up does not affect whether others like them or not. Psychologists note that in Western society, a man is expected to succeed through his own efforts, and a trusting relationship with another man is seen as weakness and a desire for submission. As a result, self-disclosure is an ineffective manipulative tactic for men. Women's goals are more clearly socially oriented: popularity, the ability to get along with other people, understanding are more valued by women than by men. Obviously, establishing the trusting relationships necessary to achieve these goals is not possible without significant self-disclosure. Not surprisingly, self-disclosure as a manipulative strategy is highly effective for Machiavellian women.

The goals of manipulation can be not only pragmatic, but also protective: it can play the role of a psychological defense mechanism that protects a person from losing self-esteem, lowering self-esteem, etc. According to Western psychologists, women are traditionally considered more submissive and compliant, they adapt better and are less prone to manipulation. However, in reality, it turns out that some women can use submissiveness and compliance for manipulative purposes. For example, some young women are afraid to successfully compete with men. Despite the fact that they would like to be successful in achieving their goals, they manage to avoid success where they could achieve greater results than men. Although the results of research on the fear of success in women are conflicting, it is possible that some women, especially traditionally feminine types, deliberately behave in such a way as to be less successful.

PSYCHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE METHOD

Reliability Poppy Questionnaire. According to the results of the fifth stage of the study, reliability-stability method is quite high: r = 0.748. One-time reliability internal consistency of scale items, indicating the degree of homogeneity of the composition of tasks, i.e. The relevance of questions specifically to such a personality trait as Machiavellianism was determined by calculating the Cronbach coefficient a. For the entire sample of subjects, it turned out to be 0.720. construct validity: the representation of Machiavellianism as a personal property in the results of the subjects' answers to the questions of the methodology. The construct validity of the Poppy Questionnaire was determined in two ways. Firstly, through a meaningful expert assessment of the conformity of the translation of the points of the Mach-IV scale into Russian and their adaptation to the realities of the Russian cultural environment. Secondly, through the application of the same methods used by foreign psychologists. The study obtained similar results on the relationship of Machiavellianism with such personal characteristics as hostility, suspicion, emotional alienation, negative self-esteem of one's moral qualities, etc. In addition, very similar data were obtained on Russian and Western samples of subjects on age and gender differences in personality Machiavellianism . This gives grounds for concluding that the Mach-IV questionnaire provides psychologists with the opportunity to identify the same quality of personality as the Mach-IV scale, i.e. machiavellianism.

Table 1

The results of adapting the Mach-IV scale on Russian samples of subjects

11 note. the significance of the difference between the data of men and women according to the i-criterion is not lower than p< 0.02

Basic normative data of the Mak-scale. Theoretically, the allowable range of total scores is from 20 to 140. In reality, in a male sample consisting of 386 subjects, the minimum score was 45, the maximum - 115. In 324 women, the minimum score was 47, the maximum was 113. Checking the distribution of averages on the Mac-scale in three studied samples (mixed, consisting of 710 subjects, male and female) showed that they all approach the normal distribution and do not differ statistically significantly from it. This means that the differences in the assessments of the subjects within each sample can be measured in fractions of the standard deviation (S). “In the case of a normal distribution of a trait, it is considered that 50% of the population fits into the interval 2/3 S - X + 2/3 S, which is the “norm” for this trait, while 25% of cases remain at the poles [Rusalov, 1997, p. twenty].

For a male sample, 2/3 of 8=13.14 is about 9. Then 79-9=70, 79+9=88. The values ​​of the upper and lower quartiles, which cut off 25% and 75% of the sample, respectively, are 71 and 88. Therefore, with a certain degree of roughness and approximation, we must assume that average scores on the Mac scale for men range from 70 to 88, low scores from 20 to 69, and high scores from 89 to 140. For a female sample, 2/3 of 8=12.33 is approximately 8. Then 72-8=66, 72+8=80. The values ​​of the upper and lower quartiles, which cut off 25% and 75% of the sample, respectively, are 63 and 81. Also, with a certain degree of roughness and approximation, we must assume that mean scores on the Mac scale for women range from 66 up to 80, low - from 20 to 65, and high - from 81 to 140.

DATA PROCESSING

Results processing key

The subject must express the degree of his agreement or disagreement with each of the 20 statements on a seven-point scale - from “Totally agree” (7 points) to “Totally disagree” (1 point). For details, see below: in the form of the methodology offered to the subject.

When processing the score in half of the points, the scales are inverted: in points 3, 4, 6, 7, 9,10, 11,14,16 and 17, a reverse count is made. This means that if the subject gave a score of 1, then the experimenter must attribute a 7 to him; if 2, then 6; if 3, then 5;

if 4, then 4; if 5, then 3; if 6, then 2; if 7, then 1. After that, the total indicator of Machiavellianism is calculated for all 20 points. In other words, it turns out that the sum of 10 ratings given to the subjects is added to the sum of 10 inverted, converted during the processing of ratings. As a result, the total indicator of the subject's answers on the Mac-scale is obtained, that is, an assessment of the severity of his Machiavellian personality.

So, the Russian-language version of the Mac scale is a fairly reliable tool for identifying the Machiavellian attitudes and beliefs of the subjects. However, based on the results of filling out the questionnaire, it is hardly possible to judge the operational basis of this personal property: whether the subject has Machiavellian knowledge, skills and abilities. Moreover, one should not make rash conclusions about behavior, that is, whether he / she uses them in situations of communication with other people. The answer to the last question requires a deeper psychological analysis and the use of other research methods.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bratchenko S.Ya Diagnosis of propensity to manipulate // Bratchenko S.L. Diagnostics of the developmental potential - a methodological guide for school psychologists. Pskov: Publishing House of the Pskov Regional Institute for Advanced Studies of Educational Workers, 1997. P. 56-62.

Rusalov V.M. Questionnaire of formal dynamic properties of individuality (OFDSI):

Toolkit. Moscow: Institute of Psychology RAS, 1997. Ames M.,

KiddA.H. Machiaveliianism and women's grade point averages // Psychological Reports. 1979. V. 44. No 1. P. 223-228

Blumstein P.W. Audience, machiaveliianism, and tactics of identity bargaining // Sociometry. 1973. V. 36. No. 3. P. 346-365.

Braginsky, D.D. Machiaveliianism and manipulative interpersonal behavior in children. // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1970. V. 6. No. 1. P. 77-99.

Cherulnik P.O. WayJ.H., Ames S., Hutto D.B. Impressions of high and low Machiavellian men // Journal of Personality. 1981. V. 49. No. 4. P. 388-400

Domelsmith D.E., Dietcb J.T. Sex differences in the relationship between Machiaveliianism and self-disclosure // Psychological Reports. 1978. V. 42. No. 3. P. 725-721.

Gei's F.L. Machiaveliianism // Dimensions of personality. N.Y.: A Wiley-interscience Publication, 1978. P. 305-364.

Kraut R.E., Price J.D. Machiaveliianism in parents and their children // J, of Pers. and Soc. Psy-chol. 1976. V.33. no. 6. P. 782-786.

Studies in Machiavel Hanism I Ed. by Christie R., Geis F.L. New York: Academic Press, 1970,

Wilson D.S., Near D., Miiler R.R. Machiaveliianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures // Psychological Bulletin. 1996. V. 119. No. 2. P. 285-299.

a socially oriented form of marital interaction, which postulates (due to the historically patriarchal-Christian image of the Russian family) the duty of the family and the presence of children.

Way of self-improvement + family as a system + emotion. This semantic model can be attributed to one of the relatively young types, as it combines not external, socially determined, but internally oriented indicators and parameters of personal development.

Family as a way to meet the needs 1 family as an extension of the family. This model is predominantly Totrebtelian in nature, where even the birth of children and the transition of marital relations to a fundamentally qualitatively new stage of their development is of a grave (consumer) nature, not associated with personal development and improvement of relationships

Family as a system + as an emotion + as a way to meet needs. This model apparently reflects the intentionality of a young family, where in an updated form

there are those semantic components that are most characteristic of the psychological climate of today's youth.

Bibliographic list

1. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K A. Strategy of life. - M .: Thought, 1491 - 29 ° s.

2. Galperin P.Ya. Semantic patterns of behavior underlying higher nervous activity W Psychology. Issue. III - Tbilisi, 1945 -S. 79-99.

3. Dmitruk Yu.Yu. Identification of a person in a married couple as a factor in the subjective well-being of family relationships: Abstract of the thesis. diss. ... cand. psychol. Sciences. - M., 2004.

4. Leontiev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality // Selected Works. At 2. -M., 1983.

5. Nalimov V.V. Spontaneity of consciousness - M .: Thought, 1989 - 420 p.

6. Chudnovsky V.E. The meaning of life: the problem of relative emancipation from "external" and "internal" ff Psychological journal. - 1995. - V. 16-No. 2. -FROM. 15-26.

A.O. Ruslin

MACHIAVELISM OF THE PERSON AND UNDERSTANDING MANSHULATIVE BEHAVIOR1

In modern society, the manipulation of consciousness manifests itself both at the level of public (Kara Murza, 2001; Grachev, Melnik, 2002; Aronson, Pratkanig 2003), and individual consciousness (Dotsenko, 2003; Margolina, Ryum-shina, 1999; Cialdini, 2002; Gegen , 2005). In this regard, understanding the manipulative plays a significant role.

The most important aspect of the problem is the study of the relationship between the psychological characteristics of the individual and the nature of his understanding of the manipulative situation, during which the manipulator, in order to achieve the set goal, with the help of hidden, distracting maneuvers, turns the communication partner from an equal subject into an object of manipulation. Understanding includes

■ The article was written with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation (grant 07-06-000133a)

evaluation points. There are initially different types of understanding: some justify and accept the behavior of the manipulator, which is based on the unconditional acceptance of communication with another person as a soulless thing, turning him into an object of manipulation - this is “Understanding-acceptance”, while others, on the contrary, consider such a thing unacceptable behavior - "Understanding-rejection".

An empirical study is described below, the purpose of which was to try to identify the relationship between a person's personal characteristics and the specifics of understanding manipulative behavior in communication. We do not study direct behavior: nor do we make predictions about the predictability of behavior based on our research. We can only assume that, understanding the situation in a certain way, according to the type of "understanding-acceptance" or "understanding-rejection"

nie”, the subject will be inclined to act in a similar way, becoming a participant in the situation of manipulation, because “in narrative psychology, scientists draw an analogy between the understanding of the text and the person’s understanding of himself, his own behavior and the events of his life” D6. With. 220].

"The impact of any objectively" "stimulating situation" depends on the personal and subjective meaning attached to it by a person. In order to successfully predict the behavior of a certain person, we must be able to take into account how he himself interprets this situation, understands it as a whole.

Three main hypotheses have been formulated:

1. Subjects with high scores in Machiavellianism, rigidity and low scores in life-meaning orientation and communicative orientation, and understanding-acceptance of manipulative behavior will justify the manipulative behavior; and vice versa.

2. There are gender differences in understanding situations of manipulative behavior: men have a higher level of Machiavellianism and to a greater extent than women will justify manipulative behavior, i.e. by type of understanding-acceptance.

3 Machiavellians*, regardless of gender, have a more pronounced manipulative orientation in communication. Non-Machiavellian, a more pronounced conformal alterocentric orientation in communication.

Methodology

The experiments were carried out in Samara.

The tested students of Samara universities of humanitarian and technical profile were 89 women and 87 men. In total, the study involved 176 people (men and women) aged 16 to 28 (M=18.26: S10=*.327).

Research procedure. First, the subjects were asked to complete four questionnaires: Mak-scale (Znakov, 2001); personality rigidity questionnaire (Practical..., 1984); the methodology of meaningful life orientations (Leontiev, 2000); questionnaire "Orientation of the personality in communication" (Bratchenko, 1997).

a text describing the behavior of a woman with a pronounced Machiavellian personality type who, through manipulative methods, prevented her son from becoming an artist (Sheldon, 2002), with a standardized set of questions.

To justify the choice of this situation, I will consider the content structure of the manipulative situation.

Firstly, numerous personal characteristics of the heroine revealed in the course of the text, such as: purposefulness, competitiveness, subject-oriented orientation, selfishness, courage, ambition. dominance, intelligence, lack of empathy, honesty and accuracy in perceiving and understanding self and others, emotional coldness syndrome, subtle effective use of flattery, bribery and intimidation, disbelief that the son can be trusted, in his independence and willpower, problem-oriented , and not on the interlocutor, the manipulation of the son for personal purposes, contrary to his own interests, prove that the heroine of the situation is a typical example of a Machiavellian personality. In addition, the story describes the cognitive, motivational and behavioral characteristics of the Gepoini, which is the basis for Machiavellianism as a psychological syndrome.

Secondly, this situation is manipulative, since the main character of the story skillfully manipulated others for personal gain. She had a psychological impact that her son did not realize, forcing him to act in accordance with her goals, hiding her true intentions, with the help of false distractions she achieved her goal.

It was assumed that the subjects, differing in gender, level of Machiavellianism, meaningfulness of life, intent in communication, rigidity, would understand the situation of manipulation in different ways and, accordingly, would respond differently to the questions.

In the psychology of understanding, the technique of posing questions is considered a reliable indicator of the comprehensibility of facts, events, and phenomena to a person. At the same time, questions should correspond to the structure of the object of understanding, i.e. in our case, situations of manipulation (Lange.

With this in mind, when planning the study, we assumed that as a result of analyzing the possible behaviors of all participants in the manipulation, the subject develops a holistic understanding of the analyzed situation. The main methodological technique was to encourage the subject to take different role positions. For this purpose, after reading the text, the subjects were asked questions of four categories.

Establishing questions are direct questions relating to the facts and explicitly presented in the text (Who is Kate? Who did Kate see Tony in the future?). Interpretive questions - when answering them, the subject must interpret the facts: make inferences about the possible causes of the events described in the text (What was the most important thing for Kate in life? Why did Kate not approve of Tony's choice to become an artist?). Identification questions that require the understanding person to mentally put himself in the place of the participants in the manipulation situation (Whose way of thinking and behavior, Kate or Tony, is more in line with your own? Do you think Kate has the right to interfere in the fate of her son if she thinks that acts for his good/). Questions for empathy - the answers to them reveal the attitude of the subject to the personality traits and behavior of the participants in the situation of moral choice (How would you behave in Kate's place, would you interfere with your son's desire to become an artist? Whom do you sympathize with in this situation, Kate or Tony?). When processing the answers of the subjects to questions to the text situation, the method of content analysis was used. The content analysis scheme included 4 blocks of categories: Machiavellian personality characteristics, Machiavellian style of interaction; non-Machiavellian personality characteristics, non-Machiavellian style of interaction.

Results and its discussion

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the results was carried out in several directions: the search for gender and personality differences, as well as the determination of the psychological characteristics of the subjects who answered eight questions. To identify statistically significant differences between

the average data of these groups of subjects were used nonparametric criteria Kolmogorov - Smirnov and Mann - Whitney.

Quantitative analysis of answers to questions

The answers of the subjects to questions about the situation in most cases refer to the type of "understanding-manipulation ¿-rejection" of manipulative behavior.

The binomial criterion shows a statistically significant predominance of responses to the questions: about role positions*. Keith, the observed proportions differ significantly from 0.5 and are 0.13 for the non-Machiavellian role and 0.87 for the Machiavellian (p<О,001); о ценностных ориенчациях Кейт, 0,86 для макиавеи-листских ценностей и 0,14 для немакиавелли-стских (р<0,001); об оценке испытуемым права Кейт вмешиваться в судьбу сына, 0,25 для испытуемых считающих что Кейт имеет право вмешиваться в судьбу сына и 0,75 для тех, кто считает, «то она не имеет право вмешиваться (р<0,001); об образе мыслей испытуемого, 0,26 для испытуемых, чей их образ мысли и стиль поведения соответствуют Кейт и 0.74 для соответствующих Тони (р<0.001); о поведении испытуемого в подооной ситуации, 0.88 не стали бы препятствовать сыну в его желании стать художником и 0.12 стали бы препятствовать (р<0,001); о симпатиях испытуемого. 0,19 испытуемых симпатизируют Кейт и 0,81 симпатизируют Тони (р<0.001). Не обнаружено статистически достоверных отличий ответов на вопрос и личности Кейт: 53 для испытуемых положительно оценили личность Кейт и 47 отрицательно (р=0,589).

To identify the specific features of the understanding of the manipulative situation by different groups of subjects, a more detailed analysis of the data obtained is necessary, focusing on the individual variables used in the experiment.

Types of understanding: understanding-acceptance and understanding-rejection of manipulative behavior

Compare the results) 07 subjects with the type of understanding - rejection of manipulative behavior and 50 subjects with the type of understanding-acceptance.

107 have less than 50 scores on the Mac scale (p<0.01; М=73,83 и М=80,90); количество макиавеллистски^ ответов на вопросы к тексту (о<0,00); М~1,84и М^4,42) и, соответствен-

Bulletin of KSU im. ON THE. Nekrasov. 200v Volume 13

but, more reviews of non-Machiavellian (p<0,001; М=4,19 и М=1,62). Также у них выше показатели по конформной направленности в оощении (р < 0,02; М = 4,05 и М = 3,34). Испытуемые, дающие положительные и отрицательные ответы на вопросы к текстовой ситуации, не различаются ни по признакам пола, ни по другим личностным особенностям.

Consequently, subjects who approve and accept manipulative behavior have more pronounced Machiavellian attitudes and beliefs than those who reject such behavior. In communication, they tend to refuse equality in communication in favor of the interlocutor, they are guided by submission to the power of authority, by an “objective” position for themselves, by uncritical “agreement” (avoidance of opposition). there is no desire for real understanding and the desire to be understood, they are aimed at imitation, reactive communication, they are ready to “adjust” to the interlocutor.

I will analyze the answers to the questions to the text.

First, consider the data of 107 subjects of the first group, which are characterized by disapproval of the worldview and personality traits of the heroine. "Evil, proud woman"; “A narcissistic woman who, apart from her company and work, did not see anything, neither the interests of her son, nor any nasty things that she did to achieve her goals”; "A powerful man who owns a large company, listening only to himself"; “A self-confident woman, accustomed to her influence and powerful position in society, that everything can be bought for money, even the possible happiness of her son, his vocation”; "Persistent, insincere, proud"; "A powerful woman who imagined that she could decide fate for others"; “A selfish woman obsessed with her company. Intoxicated with power and might”; "Egoist, limited woman."

Now let's look at the data of 50 subjects of the second group, who, while answering questions, on the contrary, positively assessed Kate's personality: "Business woman"; “An ordinary woman who got a large company, but she is also strong, because. to manage a company, you need a lot of strength, as well as intelligence”: “She is a purposeful and powerful woman”: “A strong powerful woman”: “A woman with a strong character, grip, vitality”; "Talently-

you businessman. She is a life leader. She is used to managing everything and everyone, does not tolerate views that are opposite to her "," Powerful, smart woman "" Purposeful, businesslike, strong-willed, cunning, insidious woman "; "Kate, this is a woman, persistent, purposeful, but in the depths of the soul she understands, sincere, principled ";" Purposeful, characteristic, with a fighting spirit woman, somewhat power-hungry "; "Rich, powerful woman."

Sex differences

The sample consisted of 90 women and 86 men, and the following statistically significant differences were found between their results.

Men have a higher indicator of conformal orientation in communication than women (p<0,01; М=4,14 и М-3,57). Характерно, что мужчины и женщины, не различаются ни по уровню макиавеллизма, ни по другим личностным особенностям.

Machiavellian personality

Comparative analysis of polar groups of subjects on the Mac scale: 48 people from the lower quartile (scores 44-67) and 49 from the upper quartile (85101). Weak Machiavellians have higher scores on social desirability (p<0,1; М=5,13 и М-4,02); общий показатель по смыс-ложизненным ориентациям (р<0,01; М= 108,31 и М=97,65) и другие показатели по осмысленности жизни; альтероцентрическая направленность в обшении (р<0,05; М 1,40 и М^2,59). Однако у них ниже показатели по манипулятив-ной направленности в общении (р<0.025; М=4 40 и М=6,24). Обнаружены различия и в типе понимания манчпулятивной ситуации. Сла-бовыраженные макиавеллисты имеют больше немакиавеллистских отьегов на вопросы к тексту (р<0,25; М=3,73 и М=2,78) и меньше макиа-веллистских ответов (р<0,05; М=2,33 и М=3,10).

Therefore, according to the results of the experiment, we can say that subjects with higher scores on the Machiavellian scale, when understanding the situation of manipulation in communication, are more likely than mild Machiavellians to answer questions of the type of understanding-acceptance of manipulative behavior, and vice versa, mild Machiavellians are more likely to respond according to the type of understanding-rejection. In addition, weakly expressed Machiavellians have a more pronounced orientation towards

socially desirable responses. They are prone to a pre-volitional “centration” on the interlocutor, oriented towards his goals, needs, etc. and blatant sacrifice of one's own interests, chains, the desire to understand the needs of another in order to fully satisfy them, but are indifferent to understanding oneself on his part, strive to promote the development of the interlocutor even to the detriment of one's own development and well-being. Weakly expressed Machiavellians are more convinced that a person can manage his own life, has the freedom to choose to build his life, in general, their life is more meaningful. Strongly expressed Machiavellians are focused on using the interlocutor and all communication for their own purposes, to obtain various kinds of benefits, they treat the interlocutor as a means, the object of their manipulations, they strive to understand (“calculate”) the neighbor in order to obtain the necessary information, in combination with their own secrecy, insincerity, they are guided by development and even "creativity" (cunning) in communication, but one-sided - only for themselves, at the expense of another.

Rigidity of personality

Now I will compare the results of 52 subjects with low rates of rigidity (less than 16) and 53 with high rates (more than 22).

52 have less than 53 indicators on social desirability (p<0,001, М= 13.54 и М=23,83); общему показателю смысложиз-ненных ориентаций (р<0,01; М=104,4 и М= 106,3) и конформной направленности личности в общении (р<0,03; М=4.08 и М=3,58).

Therefore, subjects with lower rigidity scores are less likely than higher scorers to give socially desirable responses, and they also have a lower overall life meaningfulness score. Subjects with higher rates of rigidity tend to refuse equality in communication in favor of the interlocutor, are oriented towards submission to the power of authority, towards an “objective” position for themselves, are oriented towards non-critical “consent” (avoiding opposition), there is no desire for a real understanding

mania and desire to be understood, aimed at imitation, reactive communication, ready to "adjust" to the interlocutor.

Social Desirability Scale from the Rigidity Questionnaire

The “lower” have higher scores on the Mac-scale (p< 0,005; М = 80,31 и М = 71,45) и манипудятивной направленности в общении (pcO.ÖOl; М=^,96 и М=4,51).

However, they have lower indicators on the questionnaire of meaningful life orientations. Characteristically, there are differences only in terms of the life-meaning orientations of goals in life, saturation of life and satisfaction with self-realization, and no differences were found in two aspects of the locus of control. According to the integral indicator of meaningful life orientations (р< 0.01; М = 9ч,65 и М = 109,58), по целям СЖО (р < 0,025; М = 30.40 и М = 34,11), по процессу СЖО (р <0,01; М =30.40 и М = 33,43) и по результату СЖО (р<:0,02; М-25,21 и М-27,25).

Also, according to the scales of personality orientation in communication: "Alterocentricity" p<0,001; М=2,5 и М=4,06) и «Конформности» (р< 0,03; М-3,25 иМ-4,11)

Consequently, subjects with low scores in social desirability have more pronounced Machiavellian attitudes and beliefs than subjects with high scores; to the means, the object of their manipulations, they strive to understand (“calculate”) the interlocutor in order to obtain the necessary information, in combination with their own secrecy, insincerity, they are guided by development and even “creativity” (cunning) in communication, but one-sided - only for themselves , at the expense of another. However, their life is less meaningful, they are less satisfied with the lived part of life, they perceive the process of life itself as less interesting, emotionally rich and meaningful, they are less expressed in life.

goals in the future that give life meaning, direction, and time perspective. Subjects with low scores in social desirability are less inclined than those with high scores to voluntarily "center" on the interlocutor, focus on his goals, needs, etc. and disinterestedly sacrifice their interests, chains, less desire to understand the needs of another with a shoal of their most complete satisfaction, and are not indifferent to understanding themselves on his part, do not seek to contribute to the development of the interlocutor and to the detriment of their own development and well-being. Also, they are not inclined to abandon equality in communication in favor of the interlocutor, orientation to submission to the power of authority, to an “objective” position for themselves, orientation to non-critical “consent” (avoiding opposition), to the lack of desire for real understanding and the desire to be understood, focus on imitation, reactive communication, readiness to "adjust" to the interlocutor.

So, all three hypotheses put forward in the study were quantitatively confirmed only partially, but the most important thing is that the specificity of understanding is directly related to the personality properties of the understanding subject. Understanding - the acceptance of manipulative behavior is associated with a high level of Machiavellianism, manipulative and conformal orientation in communication, low indicators of life meaningfulness

Bibliographic list

1. Aronson E., Pratkanis E.R. The Age of Propaganda: Mechanisms of Persuasion, Everyday Use and Abuse. - St. Petersburg: Prime - EUROZNAK, 2003.

2. Bratchenko S L. Diagnostics of personality-developing potential - a methodological guide for school psychologists. - Pskov: Publishing House of the Pskov Regional Institute for Advanced Studies of Educational Workers, 1997. - P. 34-62.

3. Gegen N. Psychology of manipulation and submission. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005.

4. Grachev G.V., Melnik I.K. Manip) 1iro-vanie personality. - M.: Eksmo Publishing House, 2003.

5. Dotsenko E.JI. Psychology of manipulation: phenomena, mechanisms and protection. - M.: "Chero" together with the publishing house "Urayt", 20i0.

6. Signs VV Methodology for the study of Machiavellian personality. - M Sense, 2001.

7. Znakos V.V. Psychology of understanding. Problems and prospects. - M.: Publishing House "Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences", 2005.

8 Kara■ Murza SG Manipulation of Consciousness. - M.: Publishing House of EKSMO-Press, 2001.

9. Leontiev D.A. Meaningful Orientation Test (SJO). - M.: Meaning, 2000.

10. Margolina E.L., Ryumshina L.I. Manipulation as a psychological phenomenon // Applied Psychology. 1999 - No. 4. - S. 65-74.

Ш Workshop on psychodiagnostics: Differential psychodiagnostics / Ed. V.V. Stolin, A.G. Shmeleva - M., 1984

12. Ross L., Nisbett R. Person and situation: Prospects for social psychology. - M.: Aspect Press, 1994.

13. Cialdini R. Psychology of influence - St. Petersburg: Piteo, 2002.

14 Sheldon S Schemer - M.: ACT. 2001.

15. Lange G. Verstehen in der

Psychodiagnostic.

Rorschach Tests.

Why is it important for a manager to know about Machiavellianism?

"End justifies the means"

Machiavellianism- the tendency of a person to manipulate people in interpersonal relationships.

Machiavellian- a manipulator aimed at seizing and retaining power in the organization. The Machiavellian is characterized by sophisticated deceit, treachery, subtle cynicism, and cold reason. The Machiavellian disregards the norms of morality in pursuit of dominance and power over other people. Machiavellian uses manipulation as the main means to achieve his goals.

Machiavellian manager I am sure that I can manage better than my leader. Machiavellian techniques are more often aimed at the very top of the organization. Machiavellian actions hinder the achievement of corporate Goals and undermine the competitiveness of the enterprise. When a Machiavellian is at the very top of management, one can expect the collapse of the business model.

Niccolò Machiavelli, Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469-1527) Italian philosopher, politician, writer. In Florence, he served as Secretary of State - Secretary of the "Council of Ten" from 1498 to 1512. Responsible for the diplomatic relations of Italy. Author of military-theoretical works. A supporter of strong state power, for the strengthening of which he allowed the use of any means, which he expressed in the famous treatise "The Sovereign", written in 1513, and published only in 1532, five years after the death of Niccolò Machiavelli. In this book, Niccolo Machiavelli advises those in power to disregard the norms of public morality in order to achieve their own goals. The Sovereign is replete with numerous references to the need to use all sorts of tricks - flattery, deceit, cruelty in the political struggle. The essence of Niccolò Machiavelli's advice, in the treatise The Sovereign, boils down to the need to seize and retain as much power as possible by any available means, while remaining virtuous in the eyes of his subordinates.

The main quote of Niccolo Machiavelli: “Everything is yours. Enemies - the law.

"The end justifies the means" - often attributed to Niccolò Machiavelli, but according to other sources, this quote could belong to both Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Ignatius de Loyola.

Since ancient times, individual individuals have sought to know the mechanisms of influence on people that play an overwhelming role in the communicative process, having unraveled the essence of the phenomena of influence, persuasion and suggestion. Suggestion has always occupied an important place in the arsenal of means to achieve power, and was actively used by experienced politicians and other manipulators in the implementation of their intentions. A special place among other methods of suggestion is occupied by manipulation - a hidden psychological impact on the interlocutor, aimed at inducing the latter to achieve the goal indirectly invested by the manipulator (according to E.L. Dotsenko, 1997).

The manipulator wins not by force, but by cunning and endurance. Its task is to force a person to do something necessary, but in such a way that it seems to a person that he himself decided to do it, and he made this decision not under the threat of punishment, but of his own free will. In fact, he acts under the influence of those thoughts and feelings that the manipulator could evoke in him, affecting the "strings of the soul" that are significant for the addressee, or motives: guilt, fear, anger.

We can become victims of manipulators because of the desire to be “good”, gentle, courteous, delicate, considerate, forgetting that it is impossible to be good to everyone. This desire is often based on the “stereotype of an outcast”: if I am rude, they will condemn me, I must “be good,” then they will accept me. Manipulators feel our fear of condemnation very subtly and skillfully use it.

The main features of manipulation are:

Feeling uncomfortable, internal struggle. You do not want to do something, say something, and it is inconvenient to refuse, otherwise you will “look bad”;

Violation of ethics, awareness of danger, verbal and non-verbal signs of manipulation. Violation of the rules of ethics is an undeniable sign of manipulation;

Feelings of guilt or danger. You have become “owed” to someone, or dependent on some circumstance, which was not there before meeting this person;

Manipulator gestures that speak of his insincerity, secrecy, doubts, superiority, threat;

A certain unusual behavior of the manipulator is excessive excitement or ostentatious indifference.

In the 1980s, organizational psychologists became interested in Machiavellianism. Countless studies have been conducted on samples of those involved in business and marketing or who lead teams. They convincingly proved that Machiavellianism is connected with the external, i.e. external locus of control. One of the reasons for the connection between Machiavellianism and externality is the desire for the Immediate achievement of the desired goal. Since internal tactics at work - hard work, perseverance, etc. - cannot lead to quick results, Machiavellians resort to manipulation and deceit - any tactics, including lying and ingratitude, are good if they help to survive and succeed.

Based on the fact that Machiavellians have an external locus of control, it is assumed that a number of characteristics are associated with Machiavellianism that show positive links with the locus of control - achievement motivation, a prosperous self-concept, self-confidence, level of moral development, job satisfaction, etc. . Accordingly, the connections of Machiavellianism with these characteristics will be negative. In addition, it is important: the higher the Machiavellianism, the lower the benevolence and consciousness.

The study of the level of Machiavellianism depending on the intellectual characteristics is rare and does not allow drawing definite conclusions. With large assumptions, it can be assumed that there is a weak relationship between Machiavellianism and the level of intelligence.

A negative relationship of Machiavellianism with emotional intelligence, as well as with many other characteristics associated with the definition of non-verbal and, especially, emotional components of social interaction, has been obtained.

As a result of the theoretical analysis of Machiavellianism, it is concluded that there is a connection between Machiavellianism and social success, namely:

The higher the level of Machiavellianism, the lower the social success;

The lower the level of Machiavellianism, the higher the social success.

A person who uses manipulation becomes limited in his behavior, is a hostage of his own communication techniques with others, and relies on the predictability of others. At the first time of communication with manipulators, it may seem that they have really achieved success, but this is just an illusion. At the first signs of awareness of manipulation, we begin to doubt their success, and a little later we notice the helplessness of the manipulator, especially without a victim.

How to spot a Machiavellian?

The Mach-V scale, in fact, allows you to measure and identify an individual's propensity for manipulation, moreover, a personal propensity that is difficult to detect by other psychodiagnostic methods. Very IMPORTANT: the use of psychodiagnostic techniques by non-specialists can lead to unreliable results and cause direct or indirect damage to the subject.

To whom it will be necessary, I will provide the Mach-V scale, for reference, but not for use.

Protection in the organization from the Machiavellians

When the Machiavellian sees the situation as uncertain, with a minimal amount of written rules governing the behavior of employees at work, they begin to aggressively manifest their Machiavellian tendencies. In highly structured situations where behavior is tightly controlled, Machiavellians "hibernate." Therefore, if you are building an enterprise, adhering to the concept of Torii Y, it is necessary to weed out specialists with a penchant for Machiavellianism “on the way”. The concept of Torii X allows you not to worry too much about Machiavellian tendencies - carefully written job descriptions, a detailed KPI scale for each position and tight control, make the costs / losses for weeding out specialists on the Mach-V scale ineffective.

Ladies and gentlemen! I'm ready to justify my opinion.