Looking in the wrong place
"Another study conducted by Mr. Keltner and Cameron Anderson, a professor at the Haas School of Business, measured "Machiavellian" tendencies, such as the willingness to spread malicious gossip, in a group of sorority sisters. It turned out that the Machiavellian sorority members were quickly identified by the group and isolated. Nobody liked them, and so they never became powerful."
This ignores, of course, what just about anyone has realized from the time people realized they were realizing things: the best devious people are able to be devious while being thought to be good. The gossip is quickly excluded because nobody likes a gossip. But beware the gossip that nobody even realizes is a gossip, who spreads their news by craft and artifice (perhaps without realizing it). They often spread gossip by rallying people to 'help' where their help isn't wanted and doesn't belong. Yet, because they're ostensibly being 'nice', it can be hard to object.
More practically in our domain: There are people who are good at noticing why things can fail. This isn't a particularly novel skill. Yet in some organizations, they're applauded from saving the group from disasters that were certainly around the corner! This is a devastatingly bad way to approach problems, and prevents progress. Yet it's easy to applaud because A) people like to be afraid; B) You only have to be right once to get to say 'I told you so' forever.
Much better is the person that can deliver. But of course, this is more risky: building new things risks mistakes, yet also can have opportunity. But note how quickly does the work of releasing several new products get ignored when one of them is a problem child.
Mini-tangent aside: You don't want to look at people who everyone thinks is devious and see if they succeed. You want to find people who are devious but hide it, and see if they succeed. My bet: they do. They just can't hide it forever.
Selection Bias
This article also fails to account for the selection bias at play. Are executives more likely to cheat, lie, or injure others? Or is word about their lying, cheating, and injurious behavior simply both more likely to be talked about and also more wide-reaching in impact? Sally in accounting cheating on her husband isn't likely to attract as much notice as Susan the CEO. And if Bob's stealing $100 in supplies a month, how does that compare to Barry stealing $100,000 as the COO?
The fact is that such corruptions are more interesting because they make for a better story, for some definition of 'better' including "fall from power" and "the powerful are like us".
(There may also be a factor at play where a person with power never gets told 'no'. I can think of celebrities where people 'latch on' for the ride, and won't ever say anything corrective or actually helpful to the person, because to do so risks the free lunch. The crash and burn can be painful.)