Machiavellian Leadership, Ethical Mentorship, and Trust Erosion in Higher Education Institutions: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

This study explores how Machiavellian leadership behaviors may become embedded in ethical mentorship relationships and how these dynamics influence trust formation, dependency, emotional ambivalence, and trust erosion within higher education institutions (HEIs). Drawing on destructive leadership and impression management perspectives, this study examines how ethical rhetoric and developmental language may function as mechanisms through which manipulation, reciprocity expectations, and dependency become normalized within organizational mentorship relationships. A qualitative research design was adopted, using semi-structured interviews with sixteen participants employed within multicultural HEIs in the United Arab Emirates. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns related to mentorship experiences, ethical self-presentation, emotional tension, and evolving trust dynamics. The findings revealed five interrelated themes: “The Wolf in a Scholar’s Robe,” where mentors project ethical identities while pursuing self-interest; “Debts That Never End,” reflecting the use of gratitude and reciprocity to create ongoing obligation; “Trust Fractures,” characterized by the erosion of interpersonal and institutional trust following perceived manipulation; “Ambivalence of Gratitude,” capturing the emotional conflict between appreciation and resentment; and “Signals of Dual Image,” highlighting the contrast between public ethical performance and private exploitative behavior. Together, these findings demonstrate how ethical mentorship may simultaneously function as a source of professional support and a mechanism of subtle control. This study contributes to the literature by conceptualizing performative ethical mentorship as a potential mechanism through which manipulative leadership behaviors may become legitimized within academic institutions. It further extends current scholarship by integrating Machiavellian leadership, ethical mentorship, emotional ambivalence, and trust dynamics within an analysis of multicultural HEI environments in the UAE, highlighting how performative ethical leadership may gradually erode psychological safety, relational trust, and organizational confidence.

1. Introduction

Dark leadership remains a significant organizational concern, particularly when mentorship relationships are strategically used to conceal manipulative behaviors. Jung’s Shadow Theory explains how hidden destructive motives may be projected through seemingly supportive interpersonal behaviors (Jung, 1959/1990), while the Toxic Triangle framework illustrates how destructive leadership behaviors may thrive within permissive organizational environments (Padilla et al., 2007). Trait Activation Theory further explains how organizational and situational conditions may activate underlying dark personality traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Building on prior research highlighting the spread of dark leadership traits within higher education environments (Alowais & Suliman, 2025) and the importance of ethical philosophies in sustainable organizational strategies (Alowais, 2024), this study examines the tension between mentorship as a developmental responsibility and mentorship as a potential mechanism of relational control.

Machiavellianism is commonly associated with strategic manipulation, calculated interpersonal behavior, emotional detachment, and self-serving leadership practices aimed at maintaining influence, control, and personal advantage within organizational settings. Individuals exhibiting Machiavellian tendencies are often characterized by impression management, political maneuvering, and the strategic use of ethical or relational discourse to achieve desired outcomes while concealing underlying self-interest. Within organizational environments, such behaviors may become particularly difficult to identify when they are embedded within mentorship relationships that are socially associated with guidance, developmental support, trust, and professional care.

Ethical mentorship generally refers to mentorship practices grounded in professional development, reciprocity, integrity, emotional support, and the genuine advancement of mentees within organizational contexts. Ethical mentors are typically expected to demonstrate fairness, transparency, empathy, and developmental commitment while fostering trust-based relationships that contribute to employee growth and psychological safety. However, emerging organizational scholarship suggests that mentorship relationships may also contain hidden power asymmetries in which developmental language, ethical rhetoric, and relational support are strategically used to cultivate dependency, obligation, loyalty, and behavioral compliance. Accordingly, mentorship may simultaneously function as a source of professional support and a mechanism of relational influence and control.

In this study, trust dynamics are conceptualized not as static organizational outcomes but as evolving relational processes shaped through ongoing interpersonal interactions, reciprocity expectations, emotional dependency, perceived authenticity, and organizational experiences. Trust within mentorship relationships may gradually develop through repeated interactions and perceived ethical conduct, but it may also weaken, fluctuate, or deteriorate when mentees begin to perceive inconsistencies between publicly displayed ethical behavior and privately experienced manipulation. Accordingly, trust dynamics within mentorship relationships involve processes of trust formation, reinforcement, emotional tension, skepticism, and trust erosion that may extend beyond individual mentor–mentee relationships and influence broader organizational perceptions, psychological safety, and institutional confidence.

Mentoring is widely regarded as an important organizational practice intended to support employee development, knowledge transfer, and professional growth. Managers are generally expected to provide guidance, encouragement, and developmental support to less experienced employees while fostering trust, competence, and ethical organizational cultures (Allen et al., 2017). However, despite this developmental framing, mentorship relationships are not always entirely altruistic. Leaders with Machiavellian tendencies may strategically adopt the appearance of supportive mentorship while simultaneously pursuing self-serving organizational or interpersonal objectives. This creates tension between authentic developmental mentorship and strategically performed mentorship behaviors.

Machiavellian leaders are frequently described as manipulative, strategic, and self-interested (Collison et al., 2018). Such leaders may use ethical discourse, professional guidance, and supportive interpersonal behaviors to cultivate loyalty, legitimacy, and influence while minimizing overt resistance or skepticism (Belschak et al., 2018). Accordingly, ethical mentorship discourse may function as a form of impression management in which trust is symbolically cultivated while underlying relational tensions remain concealed. This tension between supportive appearance and potentially exploitative organizational behavior highlights the need for deeper examination of mentorship dynamics within organizational settings.

This study pursues three interrelated aims. First, it examines how Machiavellian leaders may strategically employ mentorship narratives, ethical language, and developmental discourse to conceal manipulative intentions and strengthen relational influence. Second, it explores how mentees reconcile simultaneous feelings of gratitude, professional appreciation, emotional dependency, and perceived exploitation within mentorship relationships. Third, it investigates how perceived manipulative mentorship practices may contribute to long-term trust deterioration within organizational environments. While manipulative mentorship may produce short-term relational or organizational benefits, participants may later perceive emotional strain, skepticism, or trust erosion that negatively affects morale, psychological safety, and organizational cohesion.

Despite the growing body of research on destructive leadership, dark personality traits, mentorship, and organizational trust, limited attention has been given to how ethical mentorship itself may function as a mechanism through which manipulative leadership behaviors become normalized within organizational environments. Existing studies frequently examine mentorship as a developmental and supportive organizational practice, while Machiavellian leadership is often studied separately from mentorship processes and trust formation. Furthermore, limited research has explored how ethical rhetoric, reciprocity expectations, emotional ambivalence, and dependency dynamics interact within multicultural higher education institutions (HEIs), particularly within the context of the United Arab Emirates. Consequently, there remains insufficient understanding of how mentorship relationships may simultaneously foster professional development while also concealing subtle forms of manipulation, dependency, and evolving trust deterioration within academic environments. This study addresses this gap by examining how Machiavellian leadership behaviors may become embedded within ethical mentorship relationships and how these processes shape trust dynamics, emotional experiences, and organizational perceptions within multicultural HEIs.

Based on the identified research gap and the growing concern surrounding manipulative mentorship dynamics within higher education institutions (HEIs), this study addresses five interrelated research questions. First, how do employees in HEIs perceive the relationship between ethical mentorship and manipulative leadership behaviors? Second, how do mentorship relationships create feelings of obligation, reciprocity, and dependency among mentees within academic environments? Third, how do perceived manipulative mentorship practices influence interpersonal trust, psychological safety, and organizational confidence within HEIs? Fourth, how do mentees experience emotional ambivalence when mentorship simultaneously provides professional support and perceived exploitation? Finally, how do employees interpret contradictions between publicly displayed ethical leadership and privately experienced mentorship behaviors? Together, these research questions guide the interpretive exploration of ethical rhetoric, mentorship dependency, emotional conflict, and evolving trust dynamics within higher education contexts.

This study applies perspectives from dark leadership and organizational ethics literature to examine how mentorship relationships may simultaneously function as developmental structures and mechanisms of relational influence. Prior research suggests that Machiavellian leaders often thrive within ambiguous organizational environments where ethical narratives and professional expectations may be strategically used to strengthen legitimacy and interpersonal influence (Cai et al., 2024). Mentees may initially perceive mentorship relationships positively before gradually recognizing underlying strategic intentions or relational inconsistencies.

This study contributes to the literature on dark leadership and organizational ethics in three important ways. First, it extends existing scholarship on Machiavellian leadership by examining how manipulative leadership behaviors may emerge within mentorship relationships that are typically perceived as ethical and developmental organizational practices. Second, it deepens understanding of how mentees navigate simultaneous feelings of gratitude, emotional dependency, skepticism, and perceived exploitation within mentorship environments. Third, it examines the broader organizational consequences associated with manipulative mentorship practices, including trust deterioration, psychological strain, reduced morale, and challenges to ethical organizational culture. Accordingly, the study highlights the importance of critically re-evaluating mentorship practices rather than assuming that mentorship relationships are inherently ethical or developmentally beneficial.

2. Literature Review

Leadership and mentorship are frequently framed as ethical responsibilities within organizations, particularly within professional and academic environments where senior employees are expected to support the development of junior colleagues. However, emerging research suggests that mentorship relationships may also involve manipulation, dependency, and self-interest, particularly when leaders possess darker personality traits. This study draws primarily on Jung’s Shadow Theory, the Toxic Triangle framework, and Trait Activation Theory to explain how manipulative leadership behaviors may emerge despite outward displays of ethical conduct and mentorship. Jung’s Shadow Theory suggests that individuals may conceal undesirable motives beneath socially desirable identities (Jung, 1959/1990), while the Toxic Triangle framework explains how destructive leadership behaviors may be reinforced through interactions between leaders, susceptible followers, and permissive organizational environments (Padilla et al., 2007). Trait Activation Theory further proposes that organizational conditions, power asymmetries, and career pressures may activate Machiavellian tendencies within leadership settings (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Recent studies further indicate that these dynamics may be especially relevant within higher education institutions (Alowais & Suliman, 2025), where leadership behaviors strongly influence organizational trust, employee experiences, and ethical climate (Alowais & Suliman, 2025).

Mentorship is widely regarded as a central component of ethical leadership and organizational development. Professional ethical frameworks in sectors such as education, medicine, and law emphasize experienced professionals’ responsibility to guide junior employees and support the transfer of knowledge, values, and professional standards across generations (Allen et al., 2017). Within organizations, mentorship is frequently institutionalized through leadership development programs, training initiatives, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) frameworks aimed at strengthening employee growth and inclusion (Macassa et al., 2021). Ethical leadership theory further positions leaders as individuals expected to demonstrate fairness, integrity, honesty, and concern for others through their interactions and decision-making processes (Brown & Treviño, 2006). In this context, mentorship extends beyond managerial supervision and becomes associated with moral responsibility and organizational stewardship.

Empirical research consistently highlights the positive outcomes associated with mentorship. Mentoring relationships contribute to career advancement, professional development, knowledge transfer, and the accumulation of social capital (Eby et al., 2008). Mentees often report higher levels of job satisfaction, stronger organizational commitment, improved work performance, and greater access to professional opportunities. Mentorship also provides psychosocial support through encouragement, reassurance, role modeling, and identity formation, helping employees develop resilience and confidence within professional environments (Mann & Gaufberg, 2016). At the organizational level, mentorship strengthens social integration and reinforces institutional values by promoting collaboration, trust, and cultural continuity (Baker et al., 2020). These benefits explain why mentorship is frequently presented as an important ethical and developmental practice within organizations.

Despite these positive assumptions, researchers increasingly caution against treating mentorship as inherently benevolent or universally developmental (Pizzolato & Dierickx, 2023). The relational trust and dependency created through mentorship may also provide opportunities for manipulation, particularly when leaders possess Machiavellian characteristics. Machiavellianism, originally conceptualized by Christie and Geis, refers to a personality orientation characterized by strategic manipulation, self-interest, emotional detachment, and interpersonal exploitation (Christie & Geis, 1970). It later became associated with the broader Dark Triad alongside narcissism and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Machiavellian leaders are often skilled in impression management and interpersonal influence, using persuasion, ambiguity, and selective support to maintain control and advance personal interests (Belschak et al., 2018).

Research on destructive leadership increasingly demonstrates that manipulative leaders may present themselves as supportive and ethical while simultaneously pursuing self-serving objectives (Jaiswal & Bhal, 2014). Within mentorship contexts, such leaders may cultivate loyalty, gain political influence, secure access to information, or enhance their professional image under the guise of developmental guidance (Greenbaum et al., 2017). This contradiction complicates traditional assumptions regarding mentorship as a purely altruistic relationship. The concept of toxic mentoring further explains how mentors may misuse developmental relationships to create dependency, restrict autonomy, and normalize excessive loyalty or compliance (Scandura, 1998). Such relationships may negatively affect mentees’ psychological well-being, confidence, and trust in organizational systems (Eby et al., 2008). Recent research has also linked manipulative mentorship behaviors to abusive supervision, highlighting how leaders may conceal exploitative intentions beneath the language of support and professional development (Tepper, 2007).

The contradiction between ethical mentorship and manipulative leadership becomes particularly significant when ethical rhetoric is strategically used to strengthen legitimacy and reduce organizational scrutiny. Drawing on impression management theory, organizational actors may consciously regulate self-presentation in order to shape how others perceive their intentions and moral character (Bolino et al., 2016). Within mentorship contexts, Machiavellian leaders may cultivate reputations as caring, ethical, and supportive mentors through symbolic gestures, public recognition, ethical language, and visible participation in organizational initiatives. Such behaviors may increase interpersonal credibility while simultaneously discouraging criticism or resistance from mentees and colleagues.

Research on emotional labor and surface acting further suggests that leaders may outwardly display empathy and concern while internally remaining emotionally detached or strategically motivated. Ethical leadership branding may therefore function as a form of impression management rather than reflecting authentic ethical engagement. Although leaders may publicly endorse mentorship programs, ethical codes, or CSR initiatives, such activities may also strengthen legitimacy, reinforce influence, and protect organizational status. Previous research demonstrates that ethical leadership may occasionally be enacted symbolically to enhance reputation and secure loyalty rather than genuinely support employees (Ng & Feldman, 2015). In these situations, ethical discourse becomes intertwined with organizational influence and relational control.

The use of ethical signaling further complicates mentorship relationships within organizations. Leaders who are publicly recognized as ethical role models may become difficult to challenge because questioning them risks reputational or organizational consequences (Neves & Story, 2015). Public speeches, symbolic ethical initiatives, and visible mentorship programs may therefore strengthen perceptions of legitimacy even when employees privately experience exploitation or manipulation (Tourish, 2020). This discrepancy between ethical image and lived experience creates uncertainty among mentees regarding whether mentorship behaviors are genuinely developmental or strategically self-serving. Over time, such contradictions may undermine trust, increase skepticism, and weaken confidence in organizational leadership structures.

These dynamics are particularly relevant in understanding mentees’ experiences of gratitude, dependency, and emotional ambivalence. Mentorship relationships are frequently shaped by norms of reciprocity, where mentees feel obligated to repay career support, guidance, sponsorship, or psychosocial assistance received from mentors. According to Gouldner’s norm of reciprocity, individuals experience social pressure to return benefits received from others (Gouldner, 1960). Within mentorship relationships, this obligation may intensify because professional opportunities provided by mentors can significantly influence career advancement and organizational inclusion. As a result, mentees may develop strong feelings of indebtedness that extend beyond ordinary workplace expectations.

While reciprocity may strengthen trust and collaboration within healthy mentorship relationships, it may also become a mechanism of control when exploited by manipulative leaders. Research suggests that some mentees rationalize excessive workloads, emotional strain, or exploitative treatment because they perceive themselves as indebted to mentors who supported their careers. This dynamic may create asymmetric dependency in which mentees feel pressured to demonstrate ongoing loyalty and compliance even when mentors behave unethically. Such tensions frequently generate emotional ambivalence, as mentees simultaneously experience gratitude for professional opportunities and resentment toward manipulative expectations.

This conflict aligns with Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, which explains the psychological discomfort individuals experience when confronted with contradictory beliefs or realities (Festinger, 1957). Within mentorship contexts, mentees may struggle to reconcile appreciation for career advancement with perceptions of manipulation, exploitation, or emotional control. Previous studies indicate that such dissonance may contribute to stress, emotional exhaustion, reduced job satisfaction, and rationalization of unethical behavior as individuals attempt to maintain psychological consistency (Balamurugan & Divyabharathi, 2021). These tensions may become especially pronounced within organizational environments characterized by strong power asymmetries, where mentees fear reputational damage, retaliation, or exclusion from future opportunities if they openly challenge mentors.

Over time, reciprocity-based dependency may evolve into persistent psychological obligation extending beyond formal mentorship arrangements. Unlike contractual obligations, mentorship-related indebtedness is often emotional and symbolic, making it difficult for mentees to establish clear professional boundaries or disengage from exploitative relationships. Manipulative mentors may reinforce this dependency by repeatedly emphasizing their role in mentees’ professional progression and portraying themselves as long-term benefactors. Consequently, gratitude may gradually transform into emotional restraint, silence, and compliance, limiting mentees’ willingness to report concerns or challenge problematic behaviors.

At the organizational level, manipulative mentorship practices may undermine psychological safety, trust, collaboration, and organizational culture. Psychological safety refers to employees’ shared belief that they can express concerns, ideas, or mistakes without fear of punishment or humiliation (Edmondson, 1999). However, environments characterized by manipulative mentorship often discourage openness because employees fear retaliation, exclusion, or reputational harm. Such dynamics may extend beyond individual mentor–mentee relationships and influence broader organizational behaviors as employees observe the consequences of challenging influential leaders (Fernandez, 2008).

Low levels of psychological safety may reduce collaboration, creativity, and organizational learning. Employees working in climates characterized by mistrust and ambiguity often adopt defensive communication patterns and become reluctant to participate fully in organizational initiatives. Furthermore, when ethical rhetoric is perceived as inconsistent with leadership behavior, employees may become uncertain regarding organizational values and expectations (Ensher & Murphy, 2005). This inconsistency may encourage cynicism and weaken trust not only in individual leaders but also in broader institutional leadership systems.

Research further indicates that employees who perceive manipulation behind ethical leadership performances frequently experience betrayal, emotional withdrawal, and declining organizational commitment (Furnham & Taylor, 2004). Such distrust may gradually spread throughout organizational networks, influencing perceptions of leadership credibility, mentorship programs, and organizational ethics initiatives. Employees who become disillusioned with organizational ethics may disengage psychologically from their work, resulting in lower morale, reduced organizational identification, and increased skepticism toward institutional initiatives framed around ethics or social responsibility (Loi et al., 2014; Ehrich et al., 2018).

Manipulative mentorship may also contribute to turnover intention and long-term organizational instability. Employees who experience exploitation or emotional strain may eventually seek alternative workplaces that align more closely with their personal and professional values. High turnover weakens institutional continuity, damages team cohesion, and creates additional financial and cultural burdens for organizations. More broadly, manipulative mentorship practices may undermine the credibility of organizational ethics and CSR initiatives because employees may perceive ethical programs as symbolic public relations exercises rather than authentic commitments to employee well-being. Addressing these concerns therefore requires more than symbolic ethical branding. Organizations must strengthen accountability mechanisms, encourage transparent leadership practices, and create safe reporting structures that allow employees to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. Only through addressing these structural and cultural conditions can organizations rebuild trust and preserve the developmental integrity of mentorship relationships.

Recent scholarship increasingly emphasizes the adaptive and strategic nature of Machiavellian leadership within organizational environments, particularly in contexts where ethical identity and institutional reputation are strongly emphasized. Contemporary studies suggest that Machiavellian leaders frequently rely on impression management, symbolic ethical behavior, and moral rhetoric to strengthen legitimacy and maintain influence within organizations (Long, 2021; Liao, 2025). Emerging research further indicates that manipulative leadership tendencies may intensify within competitive or high-pressure organizational environments where leaders strategically employ interpersonal influence and ethical signaling to protect status-related interests (Liu et al., 2026). Within higher education institutions, these dynamics may be especially significant because mentorship visibility, ethical branding, and professional reputation are closely tied to leadership credibility and organizational trust. Recent organizational studies also highlight how ethical discourse and developmental language may simultaneously function as impression management mechanisms that prioritize perception over authentic ethical engagement (Khan & Javed, 2018). Consequently, employees exposed to manipulative or strategically ethical leadership practices may experience declining psychological safety, increased organizational cynicism, and reduced trust in institutional ethics initiatives, particularly when ethical rhetoric appears inconsistent with lived organizational experiences (Liao, 2025; Liu et al., 2026). These developments reinforce the importance of critically examining mentorship relationships within organizational settings, particularly within higher education environments where dependency, legitimacy, and ethical expectations intersect.

3. Methodology

This study adopted a qualitative exploratory design to examine how employees within higher education institutions (HEIs) experienced and interpreted mentorship, ethical leadership, reciprocity expectations, and perceived manipulative behaviors. A qualitative approach was considered appropriate because it enabled in-depth exploration of lived experiences, subjective perceptions, emotional ambivalence, and subtle power dynamics embedded within mentorship relationships (Creswell & Poth, 2018). While quantitative approaches may capture prevalence or statistical associations, they are less effective in revealing the emotional complexity, interpersonal contradictions, and relational tensions associated with mentorship experiences. Accordingly, an exploratory qualitative design was adopted to allow themes and interpretations to emerge inductively within an area that remains insufficiently theorized, particularly regarding manipulative mentorship framed through ethical guidance and developmental support.

The study engaged sixteen participants employed within higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates. The sample reflected the multicultural and professionally diverse nature of the UAE higher education sector and included lecturers, senior lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors, academic coordinators, and academic administrators from a range of disciplinary and institutional backgrounds. Participants varied in academic seniority, years of professional experience, and organizational responsibilities, allowing the study to capture diverse perspectives regarding mentorship, reciprocity, dependency, trust formation, and organizational culture within academic environments.

A purposive sampling strategy was adopted to ensure that participants possessed direct experience with mentorship relationships relevant to the study’s focus on ethical mentorship, manipulation, and trust dynamics (Etikan et al., 2016). Participants were required to have a minimum of three years of professional experience to ensure sufficient exposure to formal or informal mentorship structures within organizational settings. Snowball sampling was also selectively employed to access participants willing to discuss sensitive mentorship experiences that may not have been easily accessible through direct recruitment alone. The sample was not restricted to Emirati faculty members and instead included participants from diverse national and professional backgrounds working within HEIs in the UAE. The sample size was considered methodologically appropriate because thematic saturation was achieved when subsequent interviews produced recurring insights without generating substantially new themes (Guest et al., 2006).

This study primarily focused on mentee narratives in order to understand how mentorship relationships were subjectively experienced and interpreted within organizational contexts. The objective was not to clinically diagnose mentors as Machiavellian, but rather to explore how participants perceived ethical rhetoric, dependency, reciprocity pressures, manipulation, and evolving trust dynamics within mentorship interactions. Consistent with interpretivist qualitative research, the study prioritized lived experiences and organizational meaning-making processes rather than objective behavioral verification.

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, which provided consistency while still allowing flexibility for participants to elaborate on their experiences in depth (Kallio et al., 2016). The interview guide was developed around the study’s central constructs, including ethical mentorship, Machiavellian leadership behaviors, reciprocity expectations, emotional dependency, trust formation, trust deterioration, and organizational perceptions. Open-ended questions were intentionally used to encourage reflective and experience-based responses rather than predetermined or restricted answers.

Examples of interview questions included: “How would you describe your mentorship experience within your institution?”; “Did you ever feel obligated to reciprocate mentorship support beyond professional expectations?”; “How did mentorship interactions influence your level of trust toward the mentor or institution?”; “Were there situations where ethical or developmental language appeared inconsistent with actual behaviors?”; and “How did these experiences affect your emotional well-being, professional confidence, or organizational perceptions?” Follow-up probing questions were also used where necessary to clarify participant experiences and deepen interpretive understanding.

The interviews lasted between 20 and 40 min and were conducted either face-to-face or through secure video-conferencing platforms depending on participant preference and logistical considerations. All interviews were conducted individually by the primary researcher, who possessed familiarity with the organizational and cultural context of higher education institutions within the UAE. Interviews were conducted primarily in English, as English serves as the dominant professional and academic communication language within most UAE HEIs. Where participants used Arabic expressions or culturally specific terminology, these were translated carefully during transcription to preserve contextual meaning and interpretive integrity.

With participant consent, all interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to preserve linguistic accuracy, emotional nuance, and contextual meaning. Confidentiality, voluntary participation, and ethical sensitivity were prioritized throughout the data collection process due to the potentially delicate nature of discussing organizational power asymmetries, mentorship dependency, and perceived manipulative leadership behaviors. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any stage without consequence.

The data were analyzed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-stage framework, including familiarization with the data, initial coding, theme development, theme review, theme definition, and report production. Thematic analysis was considered appropriate because it allowed both inductive and deductive engagement with the data. Inductively, it enabled recurring emotional patterns, relational tensions, and mentorship experiences to emerge directly from participant narratives. Deductively, it allowed engagement with established theoretical concepts, including impression management, reciprocity norms, cognitive dissonance, and dark leadership.

Initial open coding was conducted through repeated reading of the interview transcripts to identify recurring references to manipulation, reciprocity expectations, emotional ambivalence, dependency dynamics, trust formation, trust deterioration, and ethical self-presentation. These codes were subsequently refined through focused coding and grouped into broader interpretive categories based on conceptual similarity and organizational meaning before being consolidated into the final themes.

NVivo 15.3 software was used as a supporting organizational tool during coding and transcript management. However, the primary interpretation remained manual in order to preserve contextual sensitivity and interpretive depth, particularly when analyzing emotionally nuanced discussions surrounding manipulation, contradiction, and evolving trust dynamics. In line with interpretivist qualitative traditions, coding was integrated directly into the thematic presentation rather than being presented as isolated coding tables detached from participant narratives. This integrated analytical approach allowed the findings to retain narrative coherence, experiential richness, and interpretive continuity throughout the analysis process.

Ethical rigor was particularly important given the study’s focus on organizational power, mentorship dependency, and perceived manipulation. Participants provided informed consent and were informed of their right to withdraw at any stage of the research process. Pseudonyms were used throughout transcription and reporting, while identifying information, including institutional names, was anonymized to reduce the risk of reputational harm or organizational retaliation.

Interviews were conducted within secure and confidential environments, either in private physical locations or through encrypted online platforms. All recordings and transcripts were securely stored and encrypted to protect participant confidentiality (British Psychological Society, 2021). Ethical approval was granted by the British University in Dubai (BUiD) Ethics Committee under a low-risk self-assessment procedure as part of an ongoing PhD research project.

Researcher reflexivity was also treated as an important component of the study. Reflexive journaling was used throughout the analytical process to document interpretive decisions, emerging assumptions, and potential biases. In addition, member checking was employed by sharing thematic summaries with participants to ensure resonance with their experiences and strengthen interpretive credibility (Birt et al., 2016).

4. Themes That Emerged from the Interviews

The semi-structured interviews generated rich narratives reflecting the complexity of mentorship experiences within higher education institutions (HEIs). Although many participants initially described mentorship as supportive and professionally beneficial, their narratives also revealed recurring tensions involving reciprocity expectations, emotional dependency, ethical self-presentation, and perceived manipulation. The thematic analysis generated five interrelated themes: “The Wolf in a Scholar’s Robe,” “Debts That Never End,” “Trust Fractures,” “Ambivalence of Gratitude,” and “Signals of Dual Image.” Together, these themes reflected how participants experienced mentorship relationships characterized by both developmental support and underlying relational tensions.

The findings are presented through participants’ direct quotations, followed by concise thematic interpretation to preserve the authenticity of participant voices while maintaining analytical clarity. This structure was adopted to strengthen transparency and allow participant experiences to remain central within the analytical process.

The thematic analysis followed a multi-stage interpretive coding process designed to strengthen analytical rigor, coherence, and transparency between participant narratives, research questions, and emergent findings. Initial open coding was conducted through repeated reading of the interview transcripts to identify recurring references to mentorship experiences, reciprocity expectations, dependency dynamics, emotional ambivalence, trust formation, trust deterioration, manipulation, and ethical self-presentation. These initial codes were subsequently refined through focused coding and grouped into broader interpretive categories based on conceptual similarity, relational meaning, and organizational relevance. Through iterative comparison and analytical refinement, the codes were consolidated into five overarching themes reflecting recurring patterns across participant experiences within HEIs.

Although the Results section primarily focuses on presenting participant experiences and emergent themes, limited theoretical references were selectively retained within certain sections to preserve conceptual continuity between the empirical findings and the broader theoretical framing of the study. However, extensive theoretical interpretation relating to Jung’s Shadow Theory, the Toxic Triangle framework, and Trait Activation Theory was reduced within the Results section and developed more fully within the Discussion section in order to maintain a clearer distinction between empirical findings and conceptual interpretation.

The coding process was integrated directly into the development and presentation of themes rather than being presented through isolated coding tables detached from participant narratives. This approach was adopted to preserve narrative coherence, interpretive continuity, and contextual richness throughout the analysis process. The integrated thematic structure allowed recurring emotional patterns, organizational experiences, trust-related tensions, reciprocity expectations, and perceptions of ethical self-presentation to emerge more naturally within participants’ lived experiences while still maintaining methodological rigor and analytical transparency.

To strengthen analytical coherence, each theme was explicitly aligned with the corresponding research question addressed in the study. “The Wolf in a Scholar’s Robe” examined how participants perceived the relationship between ethical mentorship and manipulative leadership behaviors. “Debts That Never End” explored reciprocity expectations, obligation, and dependency dynamics within mentorship relationships. “Trust Fractures” focused on how perceived manipulation influenced interpersonal trust, organizational confidence, and psychological safety within HEIs. “Ambivalence of Gratitude” reflected the emotional tension experienced when mentorship simultaneously generated developmental support and perceived exploitation. Finally, “Signals of Dual Image” explored how participants interpreted contradictions between publicly displayed ethical leadership and privately experienced mentorship behaviors. This alignment strengthened the conceptual coherence between the research questions, thematic findings, and interpretive analysis.

In addition, the Results section incorporates divergent and contrasting participant perspectives to strengthen analytical balance and credibility. While many participants described mentorship relationships characterized by emotional dependency, manipulation, and trust deterioration, others reported more ambiguous or mixed experiences in which mentors initially appeared supportive, professionally beneficial, or genuinely developmental before concerns regarding reciprocity expectations or impression management gradually emerged. A smaller number of participants also described mentorship relationships that remained largely positive despite institutional power asymmetries. The inclusion of these contrasting narratives strengthened the credibility of the findings by demonstrating that mentorship experiences and evolving trust dynamics varied across organizational contexts and individual perceptions.

4.1. The Wolf in a Scholar’s Robe

This theme primarily addresses Research Question 1, which explores how employees in higher education institutions (HEIs) perceive the relationship between ethical mentorship and manipulative leadership behaviors. The participants described mentors who publicly projected ethical, supportive, and developmental identities while privately engaging in behaviors perceived as self-serving, controlling, or exploitative. Many participants reported that ethical rhetoric, institutional values, and mentorship discourse were strategically used to cultivate legitimacy and strengthen influence within organizational settings. The participants frequently described contradictions between publicly displayed ethical leadership and privately experienced interpersonal treatment, resulting in confusion, skepticism, emotional discomfort, and growing distrust toward mentorship relationships. These findings reflected recurring tensions between symbolic ethical self-presentation and perceived manipulative organizational behavior.

“He quoted the ethics charter in every meeting but then asked me to pick up his children after class.”

—Lecturer 1

“In public panels, she introduced me as a success story, but in reality, I was doing background work she took credit for.”

—Assistant Professor 1

“He would praise CSR values to the press, but in the office, he only cared about building his own empire.”

—Senior Lecturer 2

“The contradiction was painful; how can someone preach responsibility so loudly and yet behave so irresponsibly behind closed doors?”

—Lecturer 3

“I was told I was the ‘future of the institution,’ but my tasks looked more like a secretary’s than a scholar’s.”

—Associate Professor 1

“Whenever there was a photo opportunity with CSR, he made sure I was in the frame, but when it came to actual research, I was excluded.”

—Lecturer 4

“It felt like being part of a stage play; ethics was the costume, but manipulation was the script.”

—Assistant Professor 2

“In official speeches he praised mentorship, but in practice, he used my work to push his projects forward.”

—Lecturer 5

“We were constantly told about ‘integrity’ in emails, but I saw integrity disappear in the daily treatment of staff.”

—Senior Lecturer 3

“I started to feel I was there only as proof that he was a good mentor, not because my growth mattered.”

—Lecturer 6

“He called himself an ethical leader, but the only ethics I saw were for reputation management, not for people.”

—Associate Professor 2

“At first I admired his talks on values, but then I realized they were shields to cover his self-interest.”

—Lecturer 7.

The participants recounted experiences with mentors who projected principled, ethical identities while privately pursuing self-interest. These mentors might have put forward their personalities as role models, often with reference to business values or corporate social responsibility ideologies, but the mentees found discrepancies between what was said and what was done.

One participant mentioned that their mentor was the type of leader who could mention the ethics code in a meeting and then exploit someone by asking them to run personal errands. This embodies the allegory of the wolf in a scholarly robe: a person who disguises opportunism as decency. Such leaders build trust by undertaking symbolic tasks like participating in CSR activities, supporting mentorship activities, or even praising mentees during press conferences but also utilize this credibility to hide disagreeable activities.

This theme reveals how difficult the mentees found it to deal with an authoritative figure who had very successfully conflated their persona with that of an organization’s code of ethics. Moral camouflaging rendered the mentees unable to differentiate between actual support and manipulative purpose, and they frequently became lost and confused regarding their right to voice their concerns.

The participants’ accounts consistently revealed the paradox of leaders who acted ethically while simultaneously exploiting those they mentored. By quoting codes of conduct, referencing CSR, or showcasing mentees in public forums, these mentors cultivated a polished moral persona. Yet, behind this façade, they delegated personal errands, withheld recognition, and appropriated mentees’ work for self-promotion.

The dissonance between the ethical image and the manipulative reality creates what many have described as a stage play, where ethics is the costume and manipulation the script. This aligns with Jung’s Shadow Theory (Jung, 1959/1990)—which suggests hidden destructive impulses are projected as virtue—and the Toxic Triangle (Padilla et al., 2007), showing how destructive leaders exploit vulnerable followers in permissive contexts. Similarly, Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) explains how organizational crises or expectations can trigger these dark behaviors. The result is a climate of mistrust and confusion: gratitude for symbolic gestures conflicted with resentment regarding daily treatment, eroding trust in mentorship as a meaningful institutional practice.

4.2. Debts That Never End

This theme primarily addresses Research Question 2, which examines how mentorship relationships create feelings of obligation, reciprocity, and dependency among mentees within HEIs. The participants described mentorship relationships that initially appeared supportive and developmental but gradually evolved into emotionally binding relationships characterized by ongoing expectations of loyalty, compliance, and reciprocity. Many of the participants explained that professional guidance, sponsorship, and career opportunities created a sense of indebtedness that made it difficult to refuse requests or establish personal boundaries. The findings demonstrate how reciprocity norms within mentorship relationships could become psychologically burdensome over time, contributing to dependency dynamics, emotional restraint, and reduced autonomy within organizational settings.

“At first, I was grateful for the advice, but later it felt like every favor had strings attached.”

—Lecturer 2

“He reminded me often that I owed my promotion to him, so saying no was never an option.”

—Senior Lecturer 1

“What began as guidance slowly turned into unpaid obligations such as committee work, errands, tasks outside my role.”

—Assistant Professor 2

“She always stressed loyalty, and if I hesitated, I was made to feel disloyal or ungrateful.”

—Lecturer 4

“I started to feel my debt was endless, like I would never stop repaying for the ‘opportunities’ I got.”

—Associate Professor 1

“When I tried to set boundaries, he said: ‘Don’t forget who opened doors for you.’”

—Lecturer 6

“It wasn’t mentorship anymore; it was moral blackmail disguised as gratitude.”

—Senior Lecturer 3

“They framed it like a family bond, you don’t refuse family, but really it was control.”

—Lecturer 5

“Even after the mentorship ended, I carried that sense of obligation, like a shadow I couldn’t shake.”

—Assistant Professor 1

The second theme is Debts That Never End, which concerns how norms of reciprocity are manipulated to create an open-ended obligation. The participants often commented that mentors stressed the value of loyalty and gratitude and, in their guidance, presented the idea that these attributes constituted a gift that had to be repaid over time. Many of the mentees believed this dynamic grew stronger with time. For example, one participant stated that the process began with them feeling grateful for the guidance but transformed into them having to complete extra work that was not part of their actual job. What began as mentorship shifted toward an open-ended sense of indebtedness. These ever-present duties offered some sort of restraint. Mentors would remind mentees about previous promotion opportunities, access to networks, or professional sponsorship, making resistance to requests almost equivalent to betrayal. It was through this framing that the distinction between voluntary reciprocity and forced compliance became blurred. Mentees often internalized the belief that refusing would jeopardize their careers, producing a long-term psychological tether that extended even after formal mentorship ended.

This theme highlights how mentorship is reframed as a cycle of perpetual indebtedness, where gratitude evolves into restraint and compliance. What began as voluntary reciprocity was transformed into coerced loyalty, with mentees pressured to equate refusal with betrayal. This process resonates with Jung’s Shadow Theory (Jung, 1959/1990), as leaders project generosity outward while concealing manipulation. It also reflects the Toxic Triangle (Padilla et al., 2007), where destructive leaders exploit followers’ vulnerability through moral leverage. Finally, Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) explains how situational cues—such as promotions or access to networks—activate manipulative strategies that bind mentees psychologically. The outcome is a persistent tether of obligation that blurs the line between mentorship and exploitation, eroding autonomy and trust.

4.3. Trust Fractures

This theme primarily addresses Research Question 3, which explores how perceived manipulative mentorship practices influence interpersonal trust, psychological safety, and organizational confidence within HEIs. The participants described experiences in which trust gradually deteriorated after they had recognized inconsistencies between their mentors’ ethical self-presentation and perceived underlying intentions. Many participants explained that feelings of betrayal extended beyond individual mentor relationships and eventually affected their broader perceptions of institutional credibility, leadership programs, and organizational culture. The findings indicate that evolving trust dynamics involves not only interpersonal disappointment but also wider organizational skepticism, emotional withdrawal, and reduced psychological safety within academic environments.

“The day I realized my mentor’s guidance was just for his own gain, something broke inside me.”

—Lecturer 3

“It wasn’t just him I stopped trusting; it was the whole system that called him an ethical leader.”

—Senior Lecturer 2

“I used to admire him, but once the mask fell, I felt fooled and naïve.”

—Assistant Professor 2

“After that experience, I could never look at mentorship programs the same way again.”

—Lecturer 6

“The betrayal wasn’t personal only felt institutional.”

—Associate Professor 1

“Once you see the hidden agenda, you start questioning every kind word as manipulation.”

—Lecturer 7

“I lost faith in the mentorship scheme; it was just a façade to polish the university’s image.”

—Assistant Professor 3

“Even genuine leaders now face my skepticism I can’t tell who is authentic anymore.”

—Lecturer 2

“The fracture spreads fast—colleagues avoid programs, nobody trusts leadership workshops now.”

—Senior Lecturer 1

“Psychological safety is gone; every act of care feels like a trap.”

—Lecturer 5

A recurrent theme was the participants’ profound disappointment that followed their discovery of discrepancies between the ethical image of a figure they had emulated and the manipulative methods that this figure employed. These “trust fractures” often emerged suddenly when a hidden agenda surfaced or gradually as mentees pieced together patterns of self-serving behavior.

Some of the respondents attributed their experiences of betrayal not to a specific mentor but to the organizational system as a whole, as this system had recognized these people as ethical leaders. For others, the discovery that the ethical branding was a sham elicited profound cynicism. As one interviewee commented, “I lost faith in the entire mentorship program. It was more of a front to put the company in a better light.”

These fractures spread beyond the mentor–mentee dyad, undermining collective trust in organizational culture. The workers were more reserved, reluctant to participate in mentoring programs, and distrustful of leadership programs. The long-term effect was erosion of psychological safety, as the individuals questioned whether apparent care and guidance were authentic or instrumental.

This theme captures the deep rupture the mentees experienced when the ethical image of their mentors was unmasked as manipulation, leading to enduring trust fractures. This dissonance generated profound cynicism, extending from individuals to the wider organizational system. This notion aligns with Jung’s Shadow Theory (Jung, 1959/1990), where the hidden destructive side of leaders is eventually revealed, shattering projections of virtue. The Toxic Triangle (Padilla et al., 2007) illustrates how such leaders flourish in permissive systems that brand them as ethical while enabling harm. Finally, Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) explains how crises or organizational opportunities activate deceptive strategies, which, when exposed, erode psychological safety and collective trust. These fractures undermine not only mentorship relationships but also institutional credibility, discouraging participation in future leadership programs.

4.4. Ambivalence of Gratitude

This theme primarily addresses Research Question 4, which examines how mentees experience emotional ambivalence when mentorship simultaneously gives rise to professional support and perceived exploitation. The participants consistently described experiencing conflicting emotional responses toward their mentors, including gratitude for career opportunities and resentment regarding perceived manipulation, emotional pressure, or exploitation. Several participants reported feeling psychologically conflicted because the mentorship relationship contributed positively to their professional advancement while simultaneously generating emotional exhaustion, guilt, silence, or dependency. These findings highlight the emotional complexity of mentorship relationships and demonstrate how gratitude and discomfort can coexist within organizational interactions shaped by power asymmetries and reciprocity expectations.

“I can’t deny he opened doors for me, but the price I paid was my peace of mind.”

—Lecturer 2

“I was thankful for her support, yet every task felt like repayment, not growth.”

—Senior Lecturer 1

“Gratitude kept me silent; I didn’t want to seem unfaithful even when I felt exploited.”

—Assistant Professor 2

“It’s confusing, you feel lucky to be supported but guilty for doubting their motives.”

—Lecturer 4

“Sometimes I justified the manipulation as the cost of advancing my career.”

—Associate Professor 1

“I told myself I should be grateful, but deep down I was resentful.”

—Lecturer 6

“They always reminded me of what they had done for me, so questioning them felt wrong.”

—Senior Lecturer 3

“I felt conflicted, was it betrayal to dislike someone who gave me opportunities?”

—Lecturer 7

“My gratitude became a chain; it stopped me from speaking up about unfair treatment.”

—Assistant Professor 1

“I lived with cognitive dissonance: respect for their help, anger at their control.”

—Lecturer 3

“Even now, I wrestle with guilt when I recall how I resented my mentor.”

—Senior Lecturer 2

Gratitude emerged as a double-edged emotion within mentorship. The participants continuously reported that they valued career opportunities, knowledge transfer, and advocacy carried out by the mentors. However, besides gratitude, most participants also mentioned resentment when they felt manipulated or overstretched. This strain gave rise to a higher order of gratitude, in which affirmative feelings coexisted with unease and deception.

Other mentees tried to justify dubious conduct as a reasonable price of entry into a higher echelon. Some were even haunted by feelings of guilt because they harbored negative feelings about a mentor and supposed they ought to have positive feelings. This struggle resonates with the concept suggested by Festinger (1957) called cognitive dissonance, in which individuals try to find a solution to conflicting beliefs. Indicatively, one interviewee confessed, “I had to give them credit on their part because they had opened doors in my career; however, I had to do nothing about how confined I was”. This ambivalence even influenced the silence of mentees because the ethical pressures of gratitude complicated their ability to express grievances without appearing ungrateful or unfaithful. The emotional burden of this tension often extended beyond the mentorship, affecting mentees’ broader sense of workplace trust and self-worth.

This theme highlights the paradox of gratitude as both empowering and constraining. While mentees valued career opportunities and advocacy, gratitude became entangled with resentment and guilt, creating a climate of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Drawing on Jung’s Shadow Theory, these emotions reveal the hidden manipulation behind mentors’ apparent benevolence. The Toxic Triangle (Padilla et al., 2007) also explains how gratitude can be exploited as a lever for compliance, while Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) shows how situational cues like promotions intensify this emotional ambivalence. The outcome was silence, strained trust, and reduced well-being, as mentees felt unable to voice concerns without betraying their sense of loyalty.

4.5. Signals of a Dual Image

This theme primarily addresses Research Question 5, which explores how employees interpret contradictions between publicly displayed ethical leadership and privately experienced mentorship behaviors. The participants described repeated signals suggesting that some mentors maintained dual organizational identities in which ethical language, institutional values, and mentorship visibility were publicly emphasized while contradictory behaviors were exhibited privately within interpersonal interactions. Several participants perceived organizational endorsement, institutional recognition, and ethical branding practices as reinforcing the legitimacy of these dual images, making it more difficult for mentees to question leadership behaviors or express concerns openly. The findings demonstrate how impression management practices and institutional reputation mechanisms contribute to confusion regarding authenticity, ethical leadership, and organizational trust within mentorship relationships.

“He never missed a chance to talk about integrity in meetings, but in practice he bent rules for his own benefit.”

—Lecturer 2

“In public, she was the champion of values; in private, she was the biggest violator of them.”

—Senior Lecturer 1

“It felt like a performance—ritualizing ethics speeches while acting otherwise behind closed doors.”

—Assistant Professor 1

“He supported a few chosen people as proof of generosity, but the rest of us were ignored.”

—Lecturer 4

“Selective kindness was the strongest tool—it built loyalty but also division.”

—Senior Lecturer 2

“The institution hailed him as an ethical leader, which made it impossible for us to question him.”

—Lecturer 5

“Her reputation created pressure to interpret my bad experiences positively, as if I was the problem.”

—Assistant Professor 2

“When the company itself calls them the face of ethics, who dares to challenge the dual image?”

—Lecturer 6

“The endorsement from above made us second-guess our instincts was gaslighting in slow motion.”

—Senior Lecturer 3

“I often wondered: is this genuine care or just another act for compliance?”

—Lecturer 7

“They had mastered impression management—it was branding, not mentorship.”

—Associate Professor 1

“The ethical rituals were like camouflage; they provided cover for exploitative practices.”

—Lecturer 3

“To us, it felt like the wolf hiding in a scholar’s robe—respected outside, manipulative inside.”

—Assistant Professor 3

Lastly, the interviews revealed signs that mentors were always seeking to maintain a principled façade and yet also act unimpeded in their leadership. Patterns included ritualizing ethics talk, wherein mentors often spoke about ethical values in front of people yet acted contrary to such values behind the scenes. The selective generosity being displayed was another aspect of mentors providing visible support to some mentees while denying support to others, usually as a method of building loyalty. This dual image was further negatively stimulated by organizational endorsement. Mentees felt additionally burdened with having to interpret their experiences positively when their organizations hailed their mentors as ethical leaders. The surrounding context of a mentor’s reputation, thereby, complicated the consistency of recognizing or questioning inconsistency. This theme exposes the functionality of the impression management strategy, not just at the personal level but also at the organizational level. Mentors established legitimacy, thus covering exploitative practices by repositioning personal branding with institutional rituals. To mentees, these cues made it difficult to tell whether acts were manifestations of genuine care or performances meant to induce their compliance.

In summary, the themes generated through the interviews revealed the complex and evolving nature of mentorship relationships within higher education institutions. “The Wolf in a Scholar’s Robe” reflected how ethical language and developmental mentorship practices were sometimes perceived as mechanisms through which influence, legitimacy, and relational control were maintained. “Debts That Never End” illustrated how reciprocity expectations and professional support occasionally generated persistent feelings of obligation and emotional dependency among mentees. “Trust Fractures” highlighted how perceived inconsistencies between publicly displayed ethical conduct and privately experienced mentorship behaviors contributed to skepticism, emotional withdrawal, and declining organizational trust. “Ambivalence of Gratitude” captured the emotional tension experienced when mentorship simultaneously provided professional support and perceived exploitation. Finally, “Signals of Dual Image” reflected participants’ perceptions of contradictions between organizational ethical branding and lived mentorship experiences. Collectively, these findings suggest that mentorship may function not only as a developmental organizational practice but also as a relational space where ethics, power dynamics, impression management, and trust processes intersect.

Participants’ descriptions of mentors maintaining supportive public identities while engaging in privately perceived manipulative behaviors may also reflect broader organizational dynamics associated with impression management and ethical self-presentation. In this context, limited theoretical linkage was retained to preserve conceptual continuity between the findings and the broader analytical framework of the study. Jung’s Shadow Theory (Jung, 1959/1990) provides insight into how socially desirable leadership identities may coexist alongside concealed, self-serving motives, while the Toxic Triangle framework (Padilla et al., 2007) helps explain how organizational environments may unintentionally reinforce or legitimize problematic leadership behaviors. Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) further suggests that institutional recognition systems, leadership visibility, and organizational power structures may activate Machiavellian tendencies within professional environments. However, more extensive theoretical interpretation of these dynamics is developed within the Discussion section in order to preserve a clearer distinction between empirical findings and conceptual analysis.

Overall, the findings indicate that mentorship within higher education institutions may simultaneously function as a developmental practice and a source of emotional tension, reciprocity pressure, dependency formation, and evolving trust dynamics. Although many participants initially described mentorship relationships positively, perceptions of manipulation, ethical inconsistency, and organizational contradiction often emerged gradually over time. Importantly, the findings also incorporated divergent and contrasting participant perspectives to strengthen analytical balance and credibility. While several participants described mentorship relationships characterized by emotional strain, dependency, and declining trust, others reported more mixed or partially positive experiences in which mentors initially appeared genuinely supportive before concerns regarding reciprocity expectations or impression management gradually emerged. A smaller number of participants maintained largely positive perceptions of mentorship despite organizational power asymmetries. These contrasting perspectives demonstrate that mentorship experiences and trust dynamics varied across participants, institutional environments, and relational contexts rather than reflecting a single uniform organizational experience.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study extend beyond descriptive accounts of problematic mentorship experiences by illustrating how ethical mentorship may simultaneously function as a developmental practice and a relational mechanism through which influence, dependency, and organizational control become normalized within higher education institutions (HEIs). Rather than conceptualizing mentorship solely as a positive organizational process, the findings suggest that ethical rhetoric, institutional legitimacy, and developmental discourse may also operate as symbolic organizational resources shaping power asymmetries and relational trust dynamics within academic environments. In this sense, the study contributes to broader organizational behavior discussions concerning performative ethics, impression management, ethical self-presentation, and relational influence within leadership structures.

Importantly, the findings should not be interpreted as suggesting that all mentorship relationships within HEIs are inherently manipulative or exploitative. Several participants described mentorship experiences that remained supportive, developmental, and professionally beneficial despite institutional hierarchies and reciprocity expectations. However, the findings suggest that mentorship relationships characterized by strong dependency dynamics and symbolic ethical positioning may create organizational conditions in which emotional obligation, silence, and trust vulnerability become more likely to emerge. These findings, therefore, complicate conventional assumptions within mentorship literature that frequently position mentorship as uniformly developmental, supportive, or psychologically safe across organizational contexts.

The study also contributes to ongoing discussions regarding organizational trust by conceptualizing trust not as a fixed organizational outcome but as a fluid relational process shaped through repeated interpersonal interactions, emotional interpretation, perceived authenticity, and organizational experiences. Participants’ narratives suggested that trust formation, reinforcement, skepticism, emotional ambivalence, and trust deterioration frequently occurred simultaneously rather than sequentially. This challenges more static organizational trust models that conceptualize trust as either present or absent within workplace relationships. Instead, the findings indicate that mentorship relationships may generate emotionally contradictory experiences in which gratitude, professional appreciation, dependency, skepticism, and distrust coexist within the same relational environment.

The findings further engage critically with existing ethical leadership literature by suggesting that organizational endorsement of ethical leadership may unintentionally complicate employees’ ability to question problematic mentorship behaviors. While prior leadership studies frequently emphasize ethical role modeling, organizational legitimacy, and values-based leadership, participants in this study described situations in which highly visible ethical branding practices appeared to strengthen symbolic legitimacy and reduce scrutiny toward influential mentors. This interpretation does not reject ethical leadership literature but rather extends it by highlighting how ethical discourse itself may occasionally become intertwined with impression management, institutional reputation maintenance, and relational control within organizational settings.

Consistent with the interpretivist qualitative orientation adopted in this study, the findings should be understood as participants’ subjective perceptions and lived experiences rather than objective verification of mentors’ intentions or behaviors. Accordingly, the study does not claim that ethical mentorship directly causes manipulation or trust deterioration. Instead, the findings suggest that participants perceived certain mentorship dynamics as contributing to emotional ambivalence, dependency pressures, skepticism, and evolving trust tensions within organizational relationships.

The findings also provide insight into how reciprocity expectations may shape mentorship relationships over time. Participants frequently described mentorship relationships in which gratitude and professional appreciation gradually became intertwined with emotional obligation and perceived indebtedness. Existing literature on reciprocity norms suggests that individuals often feel pressure to repay perceived support or organizational opportunities (Cropanzano et al., 2017). The present findings extend this discussion by suggesting that reciprocity expectations within mentorship relationships may occasionally create emotional restraint, self-silencing behaviors, or reluctance to question problematic organizational dynamics.

Trust deterioration emerged as another important organizational concern. Participants described how perceived inconsistencies between ethical self-presentation and privately experienced mentorship behaviors influenced not only interpersonal trust but also broader perceptions of institutional credibility and organizational integrity. Existing organizational research similarly suggests that trust recovery often requires broader cultural and structural reinforcement rather than isolated corrective actions (Ng & Feldman, 2015; Schyns & Schilling, 2013. These findings therefore highlight the importance of evaluating mentorship practices not solely through career outcomes or institutional visibility but also through relational ethics, psychological safety, and organizational transparency.

The findings additionally suggest that emotional ambivalence may represent an important but underexplored dimension of mentorship relationships. Participants frequently described simultaneous feelings of gratitude, dependency, appreciation, discomfort, skepticism, and emotional exhaustion within the same mentorship experiences. This tension aligns with cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), which explains how individuals experience psychological discomfort when confronted with contradictory emotional or cognitive experiences. Within mentorship contexts, participants often struggled to reconcile professional benefits associated with mentorship relationships alongside perceptions of manipulation, obligation, or emotional strain.

The findings across the five themes also extend the interpretive relevance of several leadership and organizational theories. Jung’s Shadow Theory (Jung, 1959/1990) provides insight into how socially desirable leadership identities may coexist alongside concealed, self-serving motives within organizational environments. The Toxic Triangle framework (Padilla et al., 2007) further helps explain how organizational environments, institutional endorsement, and leadership legitimacy may unintentionally reinforce problematic mentorship dynamics. Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) also suggests that organizational visibility, institutional recognition systems, and ethical branding practices may activate Machiavellian tendencies within professional leadership environments. Collectively, these perspectives support the interpretation that mentorship relationships may function not only as interpersonal developmental exchanges but also as organizational spaces shaped by legitimacy, influence, institutional expectations, and power asymmetries.

Several practical implications also emerge from the findings. Higher education institutions may benefit from adopting clearer mentorship accountability mechanisms, transparent reporting structures, routine feedback systems, and ethical oversight processes designed to strengthen psychological safety and reduce the risk of exploitative reciprocity dynamics. Institutions should also recognize that mentorship quality cannot be evaluated solely through visible career progression outcomes or symbolic ethical branding practices. Instead, greater emphasis may be required on relational transparency, emotional well-being, organizational trust, and ethical consistency within mentorship structures.

Finally, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study relied primarily on mentee narratives and therefore reflects subjective participant interpretations rather than objective verification of mentors’ intentions or organizational practices. Second, the study focused on sixteen participants within multicultural higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates, potentially limiting transferability to other institutional or cultural contexts. Third, the interpretivist qualitative design prioritized experiential depth rather than statistical generalizability. In addition, mentorship relationships were interpreted retrospectively through participant narratives rather than longitudinal organizational observation. Future research may therefore benefit from incorporating mentor perspectives, comparative institutional analysis, mixed-methods approaches, and longitudinal qualitative designs to further explore how mentorship relationships evolve across different organizational and cultural environments.

6. Conclusions

This study examined how Machiavellian leadership behaviors may become embedded within ethical mentorship relationships and how these dynamics shape evolving trust processes within higher education institutions (HEIs). Rather than conceptualizing mentorship solely as a developmental organizational practice, the findings suggest that mentorship relationships may also involve complex emotional, relational, and organizational tensions shaped by reciprocity expectations, dependency dynamics, ethical self-presentation, and perceived inconsistencies between publicly displayed leadership identities and privately experienced mentorship behaviors.

In relation to the first research question, participants frequently perceived ethical mentorship and manipulative leadership behaviors as interconnected rather than mutually exclusive organizational phenomena. Mentors were often described as publicly presenting ethical and developmental identities while simultaneously engaging in behaviors perceived as strategic, controlling, or emotionally manipulative. Regarding the second research question, the findings suggested that mentorship relationships may generate persistent feelings of obligation, indebtedness, and emotional dependency, particularly when professional opportunities and institutional support become closely associated with reciprocity expectations and loyalty pressures.

The third research question highlighted that trust within mentorship relationships may function as a dynamic and evolving relational process rather than a fixed organizational outcome. Participants described how trust formation, emotional ambivalence, skepticism, and trust deterioration frequently coexisted throughout mentorship interactions. In relation to the fourth research question, participants commonly described simultaneous feelings of gratitude, professional appreciation, discomfort, emotional strain, and perceived exploitation within the same mentorship relationships. Finally, concerning the fifth research question, participants frequently interpreted contradictions between publicly displayed ethical leadership and privately experienced mentorship behaviors as indicators of organizational inconsistency, impression management, and symbolic ethical positioning within academic environments.

Overall, the study contributes to organizational behavior and leadership literature by demonstrating how ethical mentorship may simultaneously function as both a developmental mechanism and a relational structure shaped by influence, dependency, trust tensions, and organizational legitimacy. The findings further contribute to emerging discussions regarding ethical self-presentation, impression management, and trust dynamics within multicultural higher education environments in the United Arab Emirates. Importantly, the findings do not suggest that all mentorship relationships are inherently manipulative or harmful. Rather, they highlight the importance of recognizing the emotional complexity and organizational vulnerability that may emerge when mentorship relationships become intertwined with institutional power, reciprocity expectations, and symbolic ethical positioning. Accordingly, the study emphasizes the importance of transparent mentorship structures, ethical accountability mechanisms, psychological safety, and relational trust in supporting healthier and more authentic mentorship environments within higher education institutions.