Original Research

Abuse of power, Machiavellianism and toxic leadership: A structural equation modelling approach to predict organisational cohesiveness in higher education

Budiman Budiman, Komarudin Komarudin, Mohd N. Selamat, Kusumasari K.H. Darmayanti, Siti D. Fakhriya, Jesyia Meyrinda, Eko O. Hadinata, Baharudin Baharudin

Received: 04 Nov. 2025; Accepted: 23 June 2026; Published: 01 Sept. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Orientation: Previous studies have identified several factors that predict organisational cohesiveness. Nevertheless, the role of three destructive leadership elements, toxic leadership, Machiavellianism and abuse of power, in predicting organisational cohesiveness remains underexplored, especially within the higher education landscape.

Research purpose: The primary purpose of this study is to examine the structural relationships between Machiavellianism and abuse of power on organisational cohesiveness and to investigate the mediating effect of toxic leadership.

Motivation for the study: Given that organisational cohesiveness is crucial to institutional goals and that destructive leadership behaviours are prevalent yet often unchecked, there is a need to empirically map how these negative traits and actions undermine the unity of academic staff in universities.

Research approach/design and method: This study employed a survey research strategy. Data from 665 academic staff members at universities in Indonesia and Malaysia were analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM).

Main findings: The results indicated that toxic leadership significantly mediated the relationship between abuse of power and organisational cohesiveness, and Machiavellianism and organisational cohesiveness.

Practical/managerial implications: Our research contests the dominant belief that destructive leadership invariably harms organisations. This correlation should not be interpreted as an endorsement of toxicity; rather, it indicates a form of defensive cohesion. Consequently, universities must implement a comprehensive oversight system and ensure secure, retaliation-free channels for whistleblowing.

Contribution/value-add: This study establishes toxic leadership as a key mediator and offers clear evidence for higher education management regarding the necessity of addressing power abuse to foster a healthier work climate.

Keywords: abuse of power; Machiavellianism; organisational cohesiveness; toxic leadership; public university.

Introduction

Collaboration and team cohesion are essential for higher education institutions (HEIs) to achieve their strategic goals in teaching, research and community service (Akbari et al., 2016; Sharma & Kaushik, 2022). Higher education institutions operate in complex environments that demand adaptability and innovation, which can be effectively addressed through collaboration among academic staff, institutional leaders and external stakeholders. Organisational cohesiveness refers to a group’s tendency to work together to achieve common goals (Hao et al., 2023) and is crucial to institutional effectiveness. However, unhealthy leadership dynamics, such as toxic leadership, can disrupt social integration and group tasks, thereby weakening collective commitment and organisational performance. In the context of higher education, enhancing the professionalism of academic staff requires strong team collaboration (Akhigbe & Alonge, 2024). This is particularly true for curriculum development and instructional design, which are essential for the learning process and require input from higher education professionals (Bravo et al., 2019). On the other hand, academic staff have individual responsibilities for teaching, research, publication and community service. The individual workload faced by faculty members directs their focus towards fulfilling these three aspects. Simultaneously, they must produce high-quality graduates with competitive future career prospects (Bravo et al., 2019). This underscores the need for team cohesion to enhance the curriculum so that it can exceed the profile of graduates capable of competing (Akhigbe & Alonge, 2024; Bravo et al., 2019). Previous studies reveal that toxic leadership is a widespread phenomenon across sectors, such as healthcare (Von Ungern-Sternberg & Becke-Jakob, 2025), corporate organisation (Rasool et al., 2021), government (Hattab et al., 2022) and higher education (Khasawneh et al., 2024). One study has found that over 70% of participants in one study experienced toxic leadership, which is defined as behaviours and actions by leaders that make employees uncomfortable at work. This study discusses how the cultural context shapes leadership, particularly within South East Asian (Gandolfi et al., 2025). Toxic leadership in public organisations impacts employee mental health (Hattab et al., 2022), a crisis of trust in the leader-follower relationship (Ahmed et al., 2024; Baloyi, 2020), and, as a ‘toxic triangle’, in which destructive leadership, vulnerable followers, and a supportive environment undermine organisational integrity (Padilla et al., 2007). In academic contexts, behaviours such as performativity, management practices and mental health challenges exacerbate staff demoralisation (Suchikova et al., 2024; Sutton, 2020; Watermeyer et al., 2025). Meanwhile, structural inequities trigger organisational cynicism and counterproductive behaviours (Ahmed et al., 2024). Addressing this issue requires strategies, such as safe reporting, social support and strengthening ethical leadership (Bublitz-Berg et al., 2024), and a fundamental transition that focuses on transparency, accountability and employee well-being to improve organisational performance sustainably. Numerous empirical studies have identified various factors influencing organisational cohesiveness, such as leadership style (Ben Sedrine et al., 2021) and procedural justice (Nowak, 2021; Xie et al., 2021). In the realm of public organisations, especially public universities. Kivipõld et al. (2020) stated that performance management is necessary to improve organisational goals that impact not only academic staff and students but also society. Therefore, this study aims to determine the factors influencing organisational cohesiveness with toxic leadership as a mediator.

Literature review

This section discusses the factors that contribute to organisational cohesiveness. In this study, the analysis covers the theories of organisational cohesiveness, toxic leadership, abuse of power and Machiavellianism. The following is a more detailed explanation.

Organisational cohesiveness

Cohesiveness is a central factor in achieving organisational strategic goals and a key determinant of group collaborative success (Yoon et al., 2025; Zamecnik et al., 2023, 2024). Organisational cohesiveness is a core construct in group dynamics; it is defined by Carron et al. (1985) as a dynamic process, or the tendency of a group to cooperate in achieving common goals. Further to this, Carron et al. (1985) provided insight by identifying two main dimensions: individual attraction to the group versus group integration and task orientation versus social concern. Based on this framework, scholars have formulated four categories of group cohesion: individual attraction to group-task (ATG-T) refers to the sense of belongingness and involved in achieving group goals (Yoon et al., 2025), individual attraction to group-social (ATG-S) defines as motives relating to social relationships with others and self-acceptance as part of the group (Chu, 2018; Fjermestad et al., 2023), group integration-task (GI-T) involves feelings and beliefs about closeness, similarity and bonding within the group to accomplish group-targeted work (Bereni et al., 2021; Durosini et al., 2021), while group integration-social (GI-S) involves feelings about closeness, similarity and bonding within the group as a social unit (Abrams & Der Pütten, 2020; Durosini et al., 2021). These categories reflect the complex interplay between individual motivation and social harmonisation when achieving a common goal (Gächter et al., 2025; Zamecnik et al., 2023), while these dimensions remain relevant in higher education, as cohesion is necessary for optimising academic collaboration and innovation (Queirós et al., 2023; Van der Voet & Steijn, 2021). To achieve organisational cohesiveness, leader characteristics became an important factor. One such characteristic of a destructive leader is Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism is one of the components of the dark triad, which prioritises personal gain, employing manipulation and distrust (Ekizler & Bolelli, 2020). It is essential to understand how leadership characteristics have an impact on organisational cohesiveness.

Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism is one of the main components of the dark triad (LeBreton et al., 2021). The dark triad itself represents a constellation of three socially aversive personality traits, which include narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy (LeBreton et al., 2021). In organisational contexts, Machiavellianism has been conceptualised as a personality trait involving manipulation, distrust of others and a desire to control and acquire status for one’s benefit (Ekizler & Bolelli, 2020; Upadhyay & Baber, 2023; Wu, 2019). Individuals with high levels of Machiavellianism tend to use underhanded strategies, such as deception or coercion, to achieve personal goals, especially in competitive situations (Zvi et al., 2025). These individuals are highly skilled at and successful in deceiving others in everyday interpersonal situations involving competition and strategy (Burns et al., 2024; Marcus et al., 2023). Essentially, every individual possesses some degree of Machiavellianism, but it is most apparent among politicians, administrators and heads of institutions, and may even be necessary in some professions (Galluzzo et al., 2026). Dahling et al. (2009) stated that Machiavellianism is characterised by a complex set of traits, including, but not limited to, distrust of others, amoral manipulation and a desire for control and status. Distrust of others is a negative view of others, involving active distrust of their actions and the possibility of negative outcomes resulting from these actions (Dahling et al., 2009). Amoral manipulation shows that people with Machiavellianism can manipulate others through deliberate monitoring and effective management (Dahling et al., 2009). The desire for control and status indicates that a person with high Machiavellianism sees others outside of themselves as a threat, as they want to dominate interpersonal situations, and tends to be driven to pursue goals such as wealth, power and status instead of internal goals, such as self-development or self-love (Dahling et al., 2009). Individuals with high levels of Machiavellianism tend to exhibit poor ethical behaviour compared to individuals with low Machiavellianism tendencies (Christie & Geis, 1970; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). Those with high Machiavellianism tend to show weaker ethical standards (Belschak et al., 2018). Along with Machiavellianism, abuse of power becomes characteristic of a destructive leader. Abuse of power occurs when a leader uses their authority for their own benefit, at the expense of others, or violates moral and ethical standards rather than for justifiable reasons or the good of the public (Hoeft & Mill, 2024). An environment that encourages conflict, where people may form counter-groups to survive, directly undermines organisational unity. It is important to understand how abuse of power could affect organisational cohesiveness.

Abuse of power

The concept of abuse of power is an important phenomenon in organisations that impacts organisational cohesiveness. The abuse of power can undermine organisational cohesiveness by diminishing trust and a sense of fairness among its members. When a leader abuses authority through unfair or discriminatory decisions, it can destroy the foundation of trust, making members suspicious and reluctant to cooperate. According to Clegg et al. (2006), abuse of power occurs when an individual or group in authority uses their position for personal gain, to the detriment of others, or to transgress moral and ethical boundaries, instead of legitimate purposes or in the public interest (Sturm et al., 2021). This conceptualisation of abuse of power offers a theoretical definition, as it distinguishes between power exercised for legitimate, collective purposes and power turned towards personal gains (Prislin et al., 2011). An environment characterised by abuse of power also fuels conflict and factionalism, where members may form counter-groups to survive, thus directly undermining organisational unity (Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Sturm et al., 2021). Furthermore, employee motivation and engagement decrease as they feel unappreciated or have no control over their fate, weakening collective commitment. Increased stress and psychological discomfort caused by a toxic work environment led members to withdraw and isolate themselves, damaging interpersonal relationships (Bou Reslan et al., 2025; Rasool et al., 2021). Thus, the abuse of power creates a culture of mistrust, injustice and fear that fragments organisations and causes them to lose collective commitment. Abuse of power is multidimensional and manifests through several key dimensions. Firstly, formal abuse of power involves the use of a structural position for unfair decisions, violations of procedures, and the utilisation of organisational resources for personal gain. Secondly, interpersonal abuse of power centres on the use of personal influence through manipulation, intimidation and favouritism. Thirdly, coercive or repressive power abuse is the application of threats of punishment or negative sanctions to control behaviour. Fourthly, reward abuse of power occurs when rewards are given or withheld unfairly or manipulatively (Lee-Chai et al., 2001). Overall, abuse of power is a distortion in the use of authority and influence that is oriented towards personal interests and has the potential to damage the integrity of the organisation. In addition to committing isolated infractions, leaders who exploit, manipulate interpersonal relationships, and use threats or unfair rewards foster the oppressive environment that characterises toxic leadership (Boddy, 2023). Therefore, a closer look at the toxic leadership construct itself is necessary because abuse of power is a fundamental operational mechanism through which toxic leadership undermines organisational integrity.

Toxic leadership

Toxic leaders are bullies, malevolent and act as enforcers (Whicker, 1996); they tend to be unethical (Lipman-Blumen, 2011) and can even destroy the organisational atmosphere (Gandolfi et al., 2025). Ultimately, employees become incompetent, the work environment becomes intimidating and staff are treated inhumanely (Akinyele & Chen, 2024). This study based on Schmidt (2008, 2014), who describes toxic leadership as self-interested behaviour, lack of empathy and concern for others, and consistently overestimating one’s own opinions over the interest of others, and identified five dimensions of toxic leadership into self-promotion that refer to behaviour that prioritises the interests and downplays perceived threats from competitors and subordinates’ abilities, abusive supervision is aggressive behaviour by leaders, both verbally and nonverbally, towards subordinates, unpredictability refers to the leader’s sudden mood swings, narcissism refers to the actions of leaders’ who exaggerate their self-image, show a lack empathy for others, and undermine other’s abilities and efforts of others, and authoritarian leadership authoritarian leadership limits subordinate’s creativity and autonomy by demanding complete submission to procedures set by the leader. Toxic leadership is a proximal determinant that can harm an organisation, such as a lack of empathy, abusive traits towards subordinates and a lack of respect for other opinions (Rocha et al., 2024). This behaviour directly undermines the shared identity, trust and psychological safety that connect a group. Toxic leadership is positioned as the mediating mechanism that conveys these harmful behaviours’ detrimental effects onto cohesiveness, as these behaviours are driven by destructive leader traits such as Machiavellianism and power abuse. Machiavellianism and power abuse both contribute to a toxic leadership environment, which in turn mitigates their detrimental effects on organisational cohesiveness.

Hypothesis development

Machiavellianism, toxic leadership and organisational cohesiveness

Previous studies (Al Zaabi et al., 2018; Bae & Park, 2020) indicate that toxic leadership significantly predicts organisational cohesiveness; an increase in toxic leadership is associated with a decrease in organisational cohesiveness. Alsadaan and Alqahtani (2024) found that leaders with negative types caused poor management, low work commitment and poor outcomes. In addition, Saleem et al. (2021) found that toxic leadership negatively impacts performance and dehumanises subordinates, which indirectly damages a healthy work climate (Akinyele & Chen, 2024; Priesemuth & Schminke, 2024). Machiavellian refers to individuals who are self-centred, uninterested in interpersonal relationships, behave unethically, desire control (Jones, 2016) and have a lack of social attachment, which causes a deficit of cohesiveness (Pfeffer, 2021). Leaders with Machiavellian tendencies influence employee trust and cooperation (Culver et al., 2024; Walter, 2025), which in turn affects employee collaboration and poor performance outcomes (Culver et al., 2024; Walter, 2025). Machiavellianism should be addressed to increase organisational cohesiveness (Walter, 2025). Previous studies (Coker et al., 2025; Pfeffer, 2021) have examined how Machiavellian characteristics can lead to toxic leadership. In this case, Machiavellian individuals tend to have a cynical worldview that humans are naturally selfish and untrustworthy, with dominance over interpersonal situations, status and adaptive manipulation of the social environment for personal gain (Dahling et al., 2009). These characteristics can help Machiavellian individuals survive in competitive environments and rise to leadership positions (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016), and they may lead inappropriately and treat their subordinates poorly to make them obedient (Kiazad et al., 2010). One characteristic of Machiavellian leaders is destructive behaviour towards employees and subordinates (Hammali & Nastiezaie, 2022). This behaviour is described as competitive, highly suspicious and distrustful of others, and can perform very well for their own objectives (Martinez & Henkle, 2023), including a social behaviour strategy that calls for persuading people to pursue one’s own goals, frequently at the expense of those of others (Hammali & Nastiezaie, 2022). The characteristics of Machiavellianism can foster a toxic leadership style in an organisational environment. Machiavellian destructive behaviour deviates from general norms of compliance, indicating toxic leadership in the organisation (McGiboney, 2018). Machiavellianism is thought to predict toxic leadership (Pfeffer, 2021). Based on the relationships between Machiavellianism, toxic leadership and organisational cohesiveness, it can be concluded that toxic leadership serves as a mediator between Machiavellianism and organisational cohesiveness. Thus, this study formulates the hypotheses as follows:

Alternative hypothesis:

H1a: Toxic leadership predicts organisational cohesiveness.

H1b: Machiavellianism predicts organisational cohesiveness.

H1c: Machiavellianism predicts toxic leadership.

H1d: Toxic leadership mediates the relationship between Machiavellianism and organisational cohesiveness.

Null hypothesis:

H1a: Toxic leadership does not predict organisational cohesiveness.

H1b: Machiavellianism does not predict organisational cohesiveness.

H1c: Machiavellianism predicts toxic leadership.

H1d: Toxic leadership does not mediate the relationship between Machiavellianism and organisational cohesiveness.

Abuse of power, toxic leadership and organisational cohesiveness

In organisations, abuse of power may impact organisational cohesiveness (Asmuni, 2024; Zhao & Ali, 2025). Organisational cohesiveness refers to the extent to which organisational members feel connected to each other, have common goals, and are committed to the group. The abuse of power can significantly diminish the interpersonal relationships that sustain institutional cohesion (Li et al., 2024). The concept of power distance serves as an effective framework for analysing the results of this study. In cultures characterised by high power distance, subordinates generally hesitate to question or challenge authority (Mackey et al., 2021). This reluctance diminishes the bottom-up checks that could otherwise mitigate supervisory misconduct (Mackey et al., 2021). As a result, the abuse of power by superiors can more readily evolve into entrenched toxic leadership (Hofstede, 2016). When abuse of power occurs, these relationships can be significantly compromised (Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Sturm et al., 2021; Sutton, 2020). Numerous scholarly studies involving organisational leaders and corporate employees have examined power and leadership (Sturm et al., 2021). In this instance, Sam (2021) argued that leaders may use their position to commit abuse of power, such as bullying, coercion or intimidation. Leaders who pursue power are associated with corruption and abuse of power, and can trigger toxic leadership (Wilson, 2021). In this case, leaders can abuse their position to exploit resources in the workplace (Boddy et al., 2021). Toxic leaders engage in behaviours that intimidate, marginalise and demean employees, thereby harming individuals and threatening organisational success (Octavian, 2023). This illustrates how abuse of power by leaders can lead to toxic leadership. Zhao and Ali (2025) found that abuse of power affects organisational cohesiveness. Alternatively, Wilson (2021) found that abuse of power is related to toxic leadership. Therefore, this study also aims to test the following hypotheses:

Alternative hypothesis:

H2a: Abuse of power predicts organisational cohesiveness.

H2b: Abuse of power predicts toxic leadership.

H2c: Toxic leadership mediates the relationship between abuse of power and organisational cohesiveness.

Null hypothesis:

H2a: Abuse of power does not predict organisational cohesiveness.

H2b: Abuse of power does not predict toxic leadership.

H2c: Toxic leadership does not mediate the relationship between abuse of power and organisational cohesiveness.

Research methods

This section delineates the research strategy and design utilised in this study and is structured into distinct sections: participants, research design and procedures, measurements and data analysis. This quantitative study primarily employs structural equation modelling (SEM) to perform statistical tests that examine the relationships among various research variables.

Participants

This study involved academic staff at universities (n = 665) in Indonesia and Malaysia. The participants consisted of 197 (29.62%) males and 468 (70.38%) females, with 386 (50.057%) having obtained bachelor’s degrees, 241 (36.24%) master’s degrees and 38 (5.71%) doctoral degrees.

Research design and procedure

This is a survey study designed to examine the relationship among abuse of power, Machiavellianism and organisational cohesiveness, mediated by toxic leadership. We used five questionnaires, which are described in more detail in the measurement section. This study involved public universities in Indonesia and Malaysia. The research was conducted from July to December 2023, using convenience sampling. The study considered ethical aspects, referring to the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical (1978) and the American Psychological Association (2019) during the study and in the reporting of the results.

Measurements

The researchers attached demographic aspects of the participants at the time of data collection. In addition, four measures were used in the study that met the psychometric procedures. In this study, psychometric testing involves the systematic and objective evaluation of psychological traits to minimise measurement error and ensure construct validity. Given the strict requirements for research integrity, all instruments employed specifically evaluating toxic leadership, Machiavellianism, abuse of power and organisational cohesiveness utilise established psychometric scales that comply with registered Intellectual Property (IP) and copyright standards. This study used confirmatory factor analysis to conduct validity testing and internal consistency for reliability testing. Confirmatory factor analysis was specifically employed to evaluate both absolute and incremental model fit, thereby confirming item validity through factor loadings and Est./S.E. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha.

The Group Environment Questionnaire

Organisational cohesiveness in this research was measured using the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) by Whitton and Fletcher (2014), utilising a 9-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree), e.g. ‘This team does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal performance’. 18-item of GEC was found fit with χ² (6) = 10.533, p = 0.1039, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.994, RMSEA estimate = 0.032, 90% CI RMSEA = 0.000–0.062, probability RMSEA = 0.813, SRMR = 0.011, Est./SE = 5.728–19.317 and factor loading = 0.619–0.892. In addition, the GEQ demonstrated good reliability with α = 0.869.

Toxic Leadership Scale

Toxic leadership in this study was measured using the Toxic Leadership Scale (TLS) by Schmidt (2008), with 30 items in the form of a Likert-scale, 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always), e.g. my current supervisor assumes that he/she is destined to enter the highest ranks of my organisation. Toxic Leadership Scale was fit with χ² (321) = 4254.905, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.936, TLI = 0.942, RMSEA estimate = 0.027, 90% CI RMSEA = 0.024–0.131, probability RMSEA = 0.058, SRMR = 0.048, Est./SE = 3.526–8.772, factor loading = 0.386–0.835 and reliable with α = 0.911.

Machiavellian Personality Scale

Machiavellianism was measured using the Machiavellian Personality Scale (MPS), developed by Dahling et al. (2009). The MPS consists of 45 items, which is a Likert-scale with 5 points, 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree, e.g. ‘I always let people know my honest intentions before I take’. The Indonesian version of the MPS was found with χ² (873) = 13057.597, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.889, TLI = 0.769, RMSEA estimate = 0.076, 90% CI RMSEA = 0.034–0.138, probability RMSEA = 0.062, SRMR = 0.119, Est./SE = 5.953–45.474, factor loading = 0.385–0.767 and good reliability α = 0.926.

Misuse of Power Scale

Abuse of power in this study was assessed with the Misuse of Power Scale (MOP) developed by Lee-Chai et al. (2001), which consists of 18 items with a Likert-scale with a range of 9 points, 1 = Disagree strongly to 9 = Agree strongly, e.g. ‘given enough opportunities, everyone can be corrupted’. The MOP shows χ² (81) = 1278.579, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.965, RMSEA estimate = 0.040, 90% CI RMSEA = 0.033–0.147, probability RMSEA = 0.052, SRMR = 0.068, Est./SE = 4.613–33.425, factor loading = 0.447–0.721 and α = 0.820.

Data analysis

Data analysis in this study was divided into three stages: a psychometric test to ensure that the measuring instrument has met the standards of a good measurement tool, using Mplus version 8 and JAMOVI version 2.6.44; a descriptive statistical test to assess data normality, mean, standard deviation and correlation between variables using JAMOVI version 2.6.44; and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using Smart-Partial Least Squares (PLS) version 04 (Ringle et al., 2024). Data were declared normally distributed if the skewness was within ± 2 and the kurtosis was at ± 2 (Byrne, 2016). Meanwhile, validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability was tested using internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient above 0.70, indicating good reliability (Hair et al., 2019). Then, SEM utilised maximum likelihood estimation (Hair et al., 2019). The fit index criteria followed Hooper et al. (2008), with p-value (χ²) > 0.05, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08, comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ 0.90 and Tucker-Lewis’s index (TLI) ≥ 0.90. In addition, Hair et al. (2019) stated that the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) should be ≤ 0.08, and Raykov and Marcoulides (2011) indicated that the 90% confidence interval (CI) RMSEA should be < 0.05 and the probability of RMSEA > 0.05. For good item criteria, the Est./SE value should be > 1.96 (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011) and the factor loading should be > 0.32 (Tabachnick et al., 2019). Following the establishment of these statistical and psychometric thresholds, the comprehensive outputs generated from the data analysis are systematically presented and discussed in the subsequent section.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Universitas Islam Negeri Raden Fatah Palembang (Ref. No. B- 727/Un.09/PP.06/12/2023). Data were collected using a Google Form from academic staff at several universities in Indonesia and Malaysia. Participation in this study was voluntary, with participants providing informed consent. This study ensured the confidentiality of participant data.

Results

Based on Appendix 1 Table 1-A1, the descriptive analysis and bivariate correlation matrix show that demographic factors, such as gender, have no significant correlations with organisational cohesiveness, Machiavellianism, abuse of power or toxic leadership. Descriptively, all variables had skewness and kurtosis values within ± 2, indicating a near-normal distribution of the data. Significant negative correlations were observed between organisational cohesiveness and Machiavellianism (r = –0.136, p < 0.01) and between organisational cohesiveness and abuse of power (r = –0.439, p < 0.01). In contrast, organisational cohesiveness was significantly positively correlated with toxic leadership (r = 0.515, p < 0.05). In addition, Machiavellianism was significantly positively correlated with abuse of power (r = 0.125, p < 0.01), and abuse of power was also significantly positively correlated with toxic leadership (r = 0.105, p < 0.01).

We used the path analysis method to determine the direct and indirect effects among the variables (Byrne, 2012; Moustaki et al., 2004). At this stage, the hypotheses were tested, and R² was assessed using Smart-PLS version 04 (Ringle et al., 2024). The path analysis coefficients and t-values are shown in Figure 1, and these metrics should be reported for the structural model (Hair et al., 2019). The significance level of the path coefficients can be evaluated using their sign and magnitude (± 1) and the t-statistic. The recommended t-value is 1.96. Appendix 1 Table 2-A1 presents the path coefficient values and t-values for the hypotheses developed in this study, while the R² values indicate the model’s predictive accuracy. Appendix 1 Table 2-A1 indicates the R² values for the dependent variables.

FIGURE 1: Analysis results for the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) approach.

Based on Appendix 1 Table 2-A1, the R² value of .664 (or 66.4%) indicates that toxic leadership can explain 66.4% of the variation in organisational cohesiveness. This means that a quarter of the variation in organisational cohesiveness can be explained by toxic leadership in this model. The remaining 33.6% is explained by factors outside the model or by error variance. Furthermore, Figure 1 shows that path analysis examines the relationship between Machiavellianism, abuse of power, toxic leadership and organisational cohesiveness. It was found that abuse of power had a highly significant direct effect on toxic leadership (β = 0.136, p = 0.000) and a significant direct effect on organisational cohesiveness (β = 0.073, p = 0.003). Similarly, Machiavellianism also showed a highly significant direct effect on toxic leadership (β = 0.124; p = 0.000) and a highly significant direct effect on organisational cohesiveness (β = 0.054; p = 0.000). Although the effect is significant (> 0.05), toxic leadership had a direct effect on organisational cohesiveness (p = 0.032). This suggests that, in addition to the direct effects of Machiavellianism and abuse of power on organisational cohesiveness, toxic leadership acts as a partial mediator of the relationship between them and organisational cohesiveness, despite its path coefficient being very weak. The R² for toxic leadership (0.664) indicates that the exogenous variables Machiavellianism and abuse of power jointly explain 66.4% of the variability in toxic leadership. This result indicates that Machiavellianism and abuse of power play a significant and strong role in predicting toxic leadership in this model. In contrast, the low R² value for organisational cohesiveness (0.096) indicates that the variables in this model only explain a small portion of the variability in organisational cohesiveness, implying that other, more dominant factors are not identified in this model.

Appendix 1 Table 3-A1 presents the model fit evaluation for organisational cohesiveness; overall results indicate that the model meets the fit criteria. The RMSEA is 0.035; although it slightly exceeds the ideal threshold (< 0.05), it is still considered an acceptable indication of fit (Hooper et al., 2008). This is reinforced by the probability RMSEA (p > 0.05) = 0.255, which is greater than 0.05, implying that the model is not significantly poor in fitting the data. Furthermore, the CFI is 0.951, which exceeds the 0.80 criterion and indicates a strong model fit compared to the null model. Although the TLI = 0.842, which is slightly below the stricter ‘good’ threshold (usually 0.90), this value remains within the acceptable range (Hair et al., 2019). Thus, based on these indicators, it can be concluded that the proposed model has an adequate and acceptable fit to explain organisational cohesiveness.

Based on Appendix 1 Table 4-A1, the hypothesis testing results indicate that all direct and indirect path relationships examined leading to organisational cohesiveness are statistically significant. Regarding direct effects, it was found that toxic leadership has a positive and significant effect (β = 0.156, p = 0.032) on organisational cohesiveness, an unusual finding given the theoretical expectation of a negative impact. Furthermore, Machiavellianism showed the strongest and most significant direct effect (β = 0.379, p = 0.000), followed by abuse of power, which is also significant and positive (β = 0.136, p = 0.000). Subsequently, the test for indirect effects confirmed that toxic leadership acts as a significant mediator in the relationship between Machiavellianism and organisational cohesiveness (β = 0.019, p = 0.041), as well as in the relationship between abuse of power and organisational cohesiveness (β = 0.112, p = 0.037). Overall, the model confirms that Machiavellianism and abuse of power, both directly and as mediated by toxic leadership, significantly and positively influence organisational cohesiveness.

Discussion

This study aims to determine the factors that predict organisational cohesiveness in higher education. Organisational cohesiveness is found to be significantly predicted by toxic leadership, Machiavellianism and abuse of power. In addition, toxic leadership is also significantly predicted by abuse of power and Machiavellianism. Therefore, toxic leadership partially mediates the relationship between Machiavellian-organisational cohesiveness and abuse of power-organisational cohesiveness. This suggests a significant direct and indirect effect on both Machiavellianism-toxic leadership-organisational cohesiveness and abuse of power-toxic leadership-organisational cohesiveness. The findings of this study support a previous study (Bae & Park, 2020), which found a significant contribution of toxic leadership to organisational cohesiveness. In Aboramadan and Dahleez (2020), organisational cohesiveness is defined as an antecedent of team performance. If individuals are in a cohesive work environment, they will be motivated to interact with colleagues, be more engaged with work, and have pride in their work (Aboramadan & Dahleez, 2020; Riisla et al., 2021). These conditions motivate individuals to coordinate activities so that team performance will improve (Aboramadan & Dahleez, 2020; Riisla et al., 2021). Thus, organisational cohesiveness is related to positive team outcomes. In contrast, toxic leadership is characterised by negative behaviour in leaders with a dysfunctional character and harmful actions towards followers (Lipman-Blumen, 2021; Milosevic et al., 2020). Toxic leaders are considered unlikely to motivate followers, and this has an impact on the quality of an organisation (Ibrahim et al., 2024). This is evidenced by the findings in this study, which show a positive coefficient indicating that an increase in toxic leadership is accompanied by an increase in organisational cohesiveness, and vice versa. Although toxic leadership contributes positively to organisational cohesiveness, negative results are seen in the psychological well-being of employees, which affects performance. Riisla et al. (2021) found that leaders who do not pay attention to employee conditions or ethics and who always encourage followers to work harder and achieve more are able to motivate their followers. However, this has an impact on the interpersonal quality and social resources within the team. As leaders, they engage in destructive behaviour that prevents followers from achieving success and accomplishments (Ahmed et al., 2024). Therefore, toxic behaviour by a leader negatively impacts the achievements of employees and organisations (Ahmed et al., 2024). This study revealed significant direct effects of Machiavellianism and abuse of power on organisational cohesiveness. This finding reveals a new aspect: the positive contribution of Machiavellianism and abuse of power to organisational cohesiveness. Damage to trust and fairness is more immediate and directly affects cohesiveness without the need to go through the full manifestation of toxic leadership. Under stressful situations and environments, a sense of camaraderie can develop among members (Cohen & Lansing, 2021; Gerard & Mathewson, 1966; Oswald et al., 2026), encouraging them to ‘band together’ as a collective defence mechanism against external threats (Sorensen et al., 2024). The results of path analysis found that Machiavellianism does significantly predict organisational cohesiveness. Machiavellian leaders exhibit negative behaviours, such as abusive supervision (De Hoogh et al., 2021), which are destructive to employees and organisations (De Hoogh et al., 2021). Machiavellian behaviour is associated with low social skills (Genau et al., 2022), as observed in Song et al. (2025), who found that Machiavellian leaders contribute negatively to the organisation, resulting in low performance. Thus, it can be concluded that organisational cohesiveness will decrease in proportion to the number of Machiavellian leaders. Overall, the finding that abuse of power positively affects organisational cohesiveness aligns with various theories, such as the team cohesion model (Carron et al., 2002) that highlight the role of trust, fairness and psychological well-being as pillars of cohesiveness. Abuse of power creates a culture of distrust, injustice and fear that fundamentally divides and weakens bonds between members, undermining the organisation’s functioning as a cohesive and unified entity. The findings indicating that abuse of power significantly affects organisational cohesiveness are consistent with Batchelor et al. (2023). This illustrates how abuse of power by those in power fundamentally undermines the bonds and sense of community among organisational members. This phenomenon can be explained through the lens of Kramer (2010) on organisational trust. For example, when a leader abuses power through unfair decisions, discriminatory treatment or exploitation of the position for personal gain, it directly erodes subordinates’ trust in the leadership and integrity of the system. Without trust, individuals become sceptical, feel vulnerable and are reluctant to rely on others or the system, thus inhibiting the formation of strong, mutually supportive bonds (Dirks & De Jong, 2022). This creates an environment where individuals focus more on self-protection than collaboration, as Lord Acton warned that ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ (Alsadaan & Alqahtani, 2024). Abuse of power can change individual character, reduce empathy and increase a sense of entitlement, which encourages corrupt actions that undermine trust. Furthermore, an organisational justice perspective is also crucial in understanding this impact. Abuse of power often manifests in injustice, both procedural (e.g. non-transparent or biased decision-making processes) and distributive (e.g. unfair allocation of resources or rewards). When members perceive systematic injustice, this triggers feelings of frustration, anger and powerlessness. The legitimacy of rational-legal authority relies heavily on procedural justice (Anderson et al., 2012). If leaders deviate from established rules and procedures for personal gain, their legitimacy is eroded, which in turn weakens members’ commitment to the organisation itself. An unfair environment will foster conflict and factionalism, where internal groups may form to fight or oppose the source of abuse, instead of uniting for the organisation’s goals. The psychological implications of abuse of power are also highly relevant. An environment characterised by abuse of power can lead to chronic stress and psychological insecurity among employees (Zhao & Ali, 2025). Fear of retaliation or unfair treatment inhibits open communication and cooperation. In this context, group cohesiveness erodes as members tend to withdraw, feel isolated and avoid interactions that could expose them to risks. A toxic work environment because of abuse of power can also lead to high employee turnover rates, as the literature supports that significant work stress can erode psychological well-being. The ongoing loss of members undermines team continuity and weakens the social networks essential for cohesiveness. This study found that Machiavellianism and abuse of power positively contributed to organisational cohesiveness. Mariam et al. (2022) found that leaders with these characteristics could increase team cohesion. Uppal (2022) found similar results, showing that leaders with dark personalities influence team conditions. Followers had various negative experiences at work, enabling them to empathise with their fellow employees. Such destructive leadership imposes real punishment on workers who do not fully meet their targets, which can increase worker unity (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). The stressful situations caused by Machiavellianism and abuse of power directly affect members’ behaviour and perception, quickly boosting the cohesive bond. However, these two characteristics can also negatively impact employee mental health (Mackey et al., 2021). Based on the SEM results in Figure 1, Machiavellianism is found to significantly predict toxic leadership. This supports the previous study by Pfeffer (2021), which found that Machiavellianism affects toxic leadership. The significance of the relationship between Machiavellianism and toxic leadership results indicates that there is a significant relationship between predictors and mediators. This indicates significant indirect effects among Machiavellianism, toxic leadership and organisational cohesiveness. This study is in line with Toker-Gültaş et al. (2021), who indicated a consistent pattern in Machiavellianism and toxic leadership. The findings on the significance of the indirect effect of Machiavellianism on toxic leadership-organisational cohesiveness revealed that Machiavellianism significantly contributes to toxic leadership. Therefore, hypothesis H1d was confirmed. These results corroborate prior studies (Bradley et al., 2017; Coker et al., 2025). Machiavellian leaders manipulate and control subordinates for their own benefit (Coker et al., 2025). Their behaviour impacts the emergence of trust issues among subordinates, causing mental and physical harm and damaging the organisation’s integrity (Coker et al., 2025). Machiavellian leaders exhibit manipulative, selfish and unethical behaviour (Boak, 2021). This type of leadership is damaging to an organisation and is therefore often referred to as destructive leadership (Thoroughgood et al., 2012). The results of this study indicate that abuse of power significantly predicts toxic leadership. This finding confirms hypothesis (H2b) and has important implications for understanding the dysfunctional dynamics of leadership in organisations. This relationship suggests that individuals or groups who tend to abuse power, or systems that enable abuse of power, may foster or exacerbate toxic leadership behaviours. This phenomenon can be analysed through several theoretical lenses. Pelletier (2010) added that when a person or group is given power without adequate accountability, or if they inherently tend to manipulate power for personal gain, this can change their leadership behaviour to become more destructive. In this case, abuse of power is not just an act but rather a precursor that shapes broader patterns of leadership behaviour. In addition, organisational behaviour theory, particularly concerning dysfunctional work environments, offers a further explanation. When abuse of power becomes part of an organisation’s culture or is left without consequences, it can create an environment that is permissive of negative behaviours (Manaa, 2022; Ora et al., 2025). Leaders who witness or engage in power abuse may internalise that such behaviours are acceptable or even effective for achieving goals, even if in a detrimental way. This may lead them to adopt authoritarian, self-centred or condescending leadership styles, which are the hallmarks of toxic leadership (Okray & Hüseyinzade Şimşek, 2020). In the context of this study, the finding that abuse of power predicts toxic leadership highlights that the abuse of power is not an isolated anomaly but rather can be symptomatic of deeper-rooted problems that promote forms of leadership. These point to the importance of addressing individual acts of abuse of power and revisiting power structures, accountability and overall organisational culture to prevent the emergence of toxic leadership. The finding that toxic leadership significantly mediates the relationship between abuse of power and organisational cohesiveness provides crucial insights into dysfunctional dynamics in the work environment. This finding is in line with various theoretical studies, such as Li et al. (2024), that underscore the destructive impact of toxic leadership and abuse of power on the internal functioning of organisations. Theoretically, abuse of power by leaders, which includes authoritarian behaviour, favouritism or exploitation, undermines trust and procedural justice in organisations (Drory et al., 2022). When these behaviours go unchecked and are reinforced through toxic leadership characteristics, such as narcissism, Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy, the impact is much more damaging (Tiwari & Jha, 2022). Toxic leadership serves as a catalyst, exacerbating the negative effects of power abuse by creating a climate of fear, insecurity and demoralisation (Reference). In this context, organisational cohesiveness, which refers to the level of bonding, solidarity and sense of community among members (Kidwell et al., 1997), is significantly eroded. Employees under toxic leadership who abuse power tend to feel alienated, unappreciated and reluctant to collaborate or contribute fully, which ultimately weakens the foundation of team cohesiveness and the organisation as a whole (Phillips et al., 2017). These findings confirm that to build a cohesive organisation, it is important not only to address abuse of power but also to neutralise and prevent the emergence of toxic leadership.

Limitations and future directions

A key limitation of this study lies in its focus on specific leadership constructs, namely organisational cohesiveness, toxic leadership, Machiavellianism and abuse of power, primarily evaluated within public HEIs. Because this study utilises a cross-sectional design, definitive causal relationships over extended periods cannot be fully established. Future research should expand the empirical framework by employing longitudinal designs to track how Machiavellian traits and the abuse of power dynamically erode group cohesion over time. Additionally, future studies could integrate mixed-method approaches to capture deeper qualitative nuances regarding social dialogue and leader-employee communication, which Ahmed et al. (2024) and Riisla et al. (2021) suggest are critical for mitigating workplace toxicity and enhancing long-term organisational performance. This study involves academic staff in perceiving their leaders’ leadership approach. Amid the pressure of toxic leaders, academic staff are required to remain within the institution and provide the best performance to support it. In contrast, Ahmed et al. (2024) found that toxic leadership predicts counterproductive work behaviour, which has an impact on reducing work quality. Therefore, future studies need to pay attention to several factors, such as resilience (Caniëls & Hatak, 2022; Vera et al., 2021) and adaptive coping strategies (Webster et al., 2016) for employees. It is hoped that if the significance of organisational cohesiveness, toxic leadership and several variables related to employee defence mechanisms in dealing with toxic leaders and maintaining organisational cohesiveness is later found, employees will be able to implement appropriate strategies to maintain performance and achieve institutional performance indicators. The results show that there are several implications for leaders, employees and organisational policies. Firstly, the study findings show that toxic leadership can affect organisational cohesiveness. In this case, it is necessary to develop positive relationships between leaders and employees to form good organisational cohesiveness. Dato’Mansor and Hossan (2021) suggested that feedback, goal setting, rewards and recognition, and superior-subordinate relationships have a positive and significant effect on group cohesiveness. Therefore, it is highly recommended that HEIs establish transparent, multidirectional 360-degree feedback mechanisms. This system allows academic staff to safely evaluate leadership behaviours without fear of retaliation, thereby enhancing mutual trust and institutional cohesiveness. Secondly, the study results provide insight into managerial training programmes that can improve leadership skills. Leaders need a leadership style that can provide support in achieving maximum performance results. In several studies (Sam, 2021; Sturm et al., 2021), it was found that leadership style influences job performance. Leadership styles, such as transformational, have a positive influence on improving job performance (Al Zaabi et al., 2018). Destructive leadership styles, such as toxic leadership, can cause a decrease in performance and productivity and a significant negative effect on employees (Kılıç & Günsel, 2019). Consequently, this study strongly recommends that university administrators integrate emotional intelligence, conflict resolution and ethical governance modules into mandatory managerial training programmes for institutional leaders to mitigate toxic behaviours proactively. Thirdly, stress management and resilience training help employees regulate their emotions in healthy ways and build resilience, so they can effectively avoid toxic behaviour. Employees with high resilience can manage stress and remain calm in the face of toxic leadership, enabling them to perform their tasks effectively (Britt et al., 2016).

Conclusion

This study provides crucial empirical insights into the structural dynamics of leadership behaviours and employee relations within public HEIs. The findings demonstrate that toxic leadership serves as a critical mediating mechanism that explains how darker personality traits, specifically Machiavellianism and the abuse of power, actively deteriorate organisational cohesiveness. While both Machiavellianism and the abuse of power exert significant direct positive impacts on organisational cohesiveness, their destructive capacity is heavily compounded and transmitted through the manifestation of toxic leadership behaviours in the workplace. Furthermore, the empirical evidence confirms that organisational cohesiveness is significantly and positively predicted by the combined presence of toxic leadership and leadership misconduct. In conclusion, mitigating workplace toxicity is not merely an individual concern but a structural necessity; higher education authorities must establish rigorous behavioural compliance systems and transparent monitoring mechanisms to suppress toxic leadership, thereby safeguarding institutional trust, employee well-being and academic performance.

Acknowledgements

The authors reported that they received funding from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Republic of Indonesia, which may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The authors have disclosed those interests fully and have implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated University in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.

Budiman Budiman: Conceptualisation, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation. Komarudin Komarudin: Data curation, Formal analysis. Mohd N. Selamat: Investigation, Project administration, Resources. Kusumasari K.H. Darmayanti: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Siti D. Fakhriya: Software, Validation, Visualisation. Jesyia Meyrinda: Investigation, Resources. Eko O. Hadinata: Validation, Writing – review & editing. Baharudin Baharudin: Supervision. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received a specific grant from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Republic of Indonesia.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Budiman Budiman upon reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References

Appendix 1