Transformational Leadership and Employee’s Work Behaviors:
Is Charismatic Leadership Suitable for Machiavellian Employees?
Master Thesis
Student:
Student number:
Supervisor:
Date:
Roman Jurjew
6317014
Dr. F. D. Belschak
May 25th, 2012
Acknowledgements
Dr. Frank Belschak gave Leadership courses at the Universiteit van Amsterdam; the lectures
were always very interesting and infusing. It was crucial for my decision to ask him for
supervision. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Frank Belschak for his continuous
support. He supported me with his precise feedbacks, wise guidance and patience, so I was
able to finish this paper also after long working days. Furthermore, I would like to thank all
the respondents, who helped me essentially in the data collection process, my former
colleagues, and the students at the Vocational Business School in Schwandorf, Germany, for
putting in their efforts and filling out the questionnaires. Many thanks also to my friends for
their motivational support and especially for the proof reading.
Abstract
I draw upon recent empirical evidence provided by researchers on leadership and
Machiavellianism. Two types of behaviors, namely proactive behavior, CWB and three
personal motives were included in this study. A total of 104 returned questionnaires were used
in multiple regression analyses. Transformational Leadership and Machiavellianism were
proposed to have a moderating role on motives, proactivity and CWB. Significant interaction
relationships between transformational leaders, Machiavellians, proactivity and CWB were
reported. Subjects scoring high on Machiavellianism had a stronger relationship with
proactive behavior, pro-organizational motives, and vice versa a weaker relationship with
CWB and impression management in a high-transformational leadership setting. Impression
management was negatively related to proactivity, and positively to CWB. Inter alia, proorganizational motives were significantly positive related with proactivity and negatively with
CWB. Concluding, these findings have made a contribution to the previous research, and
specifically have helped to get a further understanding of the leadership’s effect on employee
behavior.
Contents
Acknow ledgements.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4
Abstract................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
1.
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2.
Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Machiavellianism .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 The Strengths of Machiavellianism ........................................................................................ 6
2.1.2 Performance and Machiavellianism ....................................................................................... 7
2.1.3 The Risk with Machiavellianism ............................................................................................ 9
2.2 Leading Machiavellians .............................................................................................................. 10
2.2.1 Transformational Leadership................................................................................................ 11
2.2.2 Full Range Leadership .......................................................................................................... 13
3.
Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Proactive Behavior at Work ........................................................................................................ 16
3.1.1 The Proactivity Construct ..................................................................................................... 18
3.1.2 Antecedents of Proactivity ................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Counterproductive Work Behaviors ............................................................................................ 22
3.3 Machiavellians and Outcomes ..................................................................................................... 23
3.4 Personal Motives and Outcomes ................................................................................................. 24
3.5 Impression Management and the Role of Transformational Leadership..................................... 26
4.
Interacting Effect of Transformational Leaders on Machiavellians .............................................. 27
4.1 Influence through Inspirational Motivation................................................................................. 29
4.2 Influence through Intellectual Stimulation .................................................................................. 30
4.3 Influence through Individualized Influence and Individualized Consideration .......................... 31
5.
Moderating Effects ........................................................................................................................ 32
5.1 Transformational Leadership, Machiavellianism, and Outcomes ............................................... 32
5.2 Transformational Leadership, Machiavellianism, and Motives .................................................. 34
6.
Method........................................................................................................................................... 36
6.1 Sample and Procedure ................................................................................................................. 36
6.2 Measurement of Variables........................................................................................................... 37
7.
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 38
7.1 Correlations ................................................................................................................................. 38
7.2 Testing the Moderation ............................................................................................................... 39
7.3 The Model Assumptions ............................................................................................................. 39
7.4 Results Moderation Hypothesis 8 ................................................................................................ 40
7.5 Results Moderation Hypothesis 9 ................................................................................................ 43
7.6 Results Moderation Hypothesis 10 .............................................................................................. 43
7.7 Results Moderation Hypothesis 11.............................................................................................. 44
8.
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 44
8.1 Research findings and theoretical implications ........................................................................... 45
8.2 Limitations and Future Research ................................................................................................. 49
9. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 51
Works Cited........................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 60
Hypothesis 9 ...................................................................................................................................... 60
Hypothesis 10 .................................................................................................................................... 62
Hypothesis 11 .................................................................................................................................... 64
1. Introduction
Recent happenings in the global economy, as the downgrades of the US debt status, are
reflecting a heightened uncertainty in the global market. Economists forecast an even more
dangerous new phase of the financial crisis in the future, and it seems like it will take a while
until the economy recovers (Lagarde, 2011). Organizations need to be highly flexible in their
strategies in order to outlast current obstacles in such tensioned global situations.
Strategy involves smart decision makers and willed followers, and both are simply
put: people. Individuals are quite complex in their nature, thus, the literature shows a keen
interest in discovering employees behaviors as proactive behavior (Morrison & Phelps, 1999;
Frese & Fay, 2001; Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995), counterproductive work
behaviors (Fodchuk, 2007; Spector & Fox, 2005; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006; Robinson &
Bennett, 1995), or personal motivational aspects of certain behaviors (Rioux & Penner, 2001).
Accordingly, the present research presents an approach to give a broader understanding of the
leadership’s effects on personal motives, proactive and counterproductive work behavior,
respectively. When considering certain behaviors and motives of employees, differences in
personalities should be part of the research, because various personalities can crucially limit
the validity of existent frameworks. Consequently, companies need to find proper ways in
how to lead different employees, thus, a closer look at the various personality traits needs to
be taken. An interesting and recently researched trait is named as “Machiavellianism”.
Machiavellianism is based on the theories and books of an Italian humanist,
philosopher, and writer named Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli. One of his most popular
books is titled as “The Prince” (lat. ‘De Principatibus’, 1513). With his thoughts of political
strategies Machiavelli set up an interesting field of research on Machiavellianism. He justifies
immoral behaviors of a leader (or ‘prince’) to achieve goals such as survival, glory, and
power. Although Machiavelli suggested using harsh, deceitful and manipulative behavior, he
1
advised to act so only if necessary. Nowadays, Machiavellianism is a widely used term in the
research of psychology, human capital leadership, and management. In the relevant literature
the term is often accompanied by pejorative perceptions (Christie & Geis, 1968; Wilson,
Near, & Miller, 1996; Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009; Griffin & O’Leary-Kelly, 2004;
Machiavelli, 1966; Sakalaki, Richardson, & Thepaut, 2007; Deluga, 2001).
This personality trait is often to be found in a person, who makes use of manipulative
strategies, or who is very eager in achieving personal goals (Christie & Geis, 1970). Those are
less emotionally attached to others, engage in amoral behaviors, and have rather a distinct
self-interest focus than achieving collective goals (Christie & Geis, 1970). Thereby, the core
associations with Machiavellianism are the notions of influence, an unethical and a general
negative view on the human nature, even though high-scoring Machs can also be charming
and empathetic with others. Based on the studies, Machiavellian employees would perceive
ethical actions as less serious and think in the sense of ‘the ends justify the means’, while
focusing rather on short term, than long term goals and tasks (Kessler, Bandelli, Spector,
Borman, Nelson, & Penney, 2010).
A Machiavellian might display a pessimistic or negative view of human nature and
might not reject opportunistic and unethical ways of manipulating people, but also contain
and give interesting and practical insights into human behavior, respectively. For researchers,
such personalities are valid predictors of outcomes such as counterproductive work behaviors
(CWB), job (dis-) satisfaction, or task performance (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009).
Nowadays, scholars stress the importance of certain leadership styles and their impact in
respect to employee behaviors for an organization’s well-being.
For instance, transformational leadership has been associated with proactive behavior
(Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010), performance beyond expectations (Barbuto, 2005; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004), and further significant positives (e.g. Bass B., 1985). Transformational leaders
as Richard Branson (founder of Virgin Group) proved to have a certain abilitiy to influence
2
others towards success and an organization’s competitive standing. His statements comprise
essential elements of charismatic or transformational leadership, inter alia a clear vision.
“A company is people … employees want to know… am I being listened to or am I a cog in
the wheel? People really need to feel wanted…”
- Sir Richard Branson
A charismatic leader inspires employees to follow, particularly in difficult situations,
which is a crucial factor in overcoming obstacles such as financial crises. Past findings
suggest that employees do imitate a transformational leader’s behavior (Avolio, Bass, & Jung,
1999). But does it really affect everyone? Could these leading skills turn an employee with
Machiavellian ratings to a success promising member in the organization, too? Accordingly,
this paper explores the area of Machiavellianism, leadership and proactive behavior by
addressing several hypotheses to be able to answer the following question: Does the
transformational leadership style influence Machiavellians towards a more proactive and less
counterproductive work behavior?
When interpreting the empirical evidence related to leadership and its effects on
follower behavior, a transformational leader style seems to fit better than nontransformational leadership styles in order to manage Machiavellian personalities. Leadership
plays an important role in influencing employee’s behavior. A proper leadership style could
activate proactive and vice versa, discourage counterproductive work behavior in Machs.
Especially proactive behavior is highly desired by companies, because of its advantages for
the individuals (e.g. Frese & Fay, 2001; Crant J. M., 1995; Thomas, Whitman, &
Viswesvaran, 2010), as well as for the organization (e.g. Frese & Fay; Baer & Frese, 2003;
Kirkman & Rosen, 1993).
3
It has been shown that charismatic leaders do transform a pro-self’s decision towards
more collective-oriented or self-sacrificing motives in social dilemmas (De Cremer, 2002).
Thereby, a supervisor’s emotional reaction caused by employee’s helping behaviors is of
significance (Halbesleben, Bolino, Bowler, & Turnley, 2010). Based on this evidence, the
present study takes an approach to explore whether a charismatic leader is able to encourage
also Machiavellians to more proactivity, and vice versa, discourage CWBs. To see the
leader’s influence, it will be investigated by which mechanisms Machiavellians are driven,
when having leaders high and low on charisma. The influence of charismatic leaders on
Machiavellian personalities and their motives (three mechanisms: impression management,
organizational concern, and prosocial values) as suggested by Rioux & Penner (2001) is
examined.
The latter assumption of this study is that transformational leaders will affect the
motives in Machiavellians in a more pro-organizational sense. Simultaneously, it does not
necessarily mean that followers with pro-organizational motives indeed engage more in
proactive, than in coutnerproductive behavior. However, because they are more committed
and socialabe in their acting, less counterproductive and more proactive behavior is expected.
Firstly, this paper presents a detailed literature review on transformational leadership,
Machiavellianism, work behaviors, and personal motives. Hypotheses are formulated on the
base of theory presented inter alia by replicating previous findings. This approach helps to
understand critical relations in the further framework and gives a basis for the moderation
hypotheses. Secondly, the study includes data analyses, presentation of the results, and a
discussion followed by suggestions for future research, theoretical and practical implications.
4
2. Literature Review
2.1 Machiavellianism
It was a matter of time until Machiavelli’s work was considered in the modern leadership and
management theories. Partly, the term does indeed evoke one’s condemnatory associations,
especially in respect to a leader’s or an employee’s work behavior. A contribution towards
this thought can be found in the book titled as ‘The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior’
(Griffin & O’Leary-Kelly, 2004). The comprehensive collection gives a broad understanding
of recent ideas associated with negative outcomes of organizational (citizenship-) behavior
(OCB). According to Sakalaki et al. (2007), employees with Machiavellian tendencies show
more often engagement in economic opportunism. They rather maximize their own
advantages than trusting or cooperating with business partners. Such behaviors can also be
counterproductive for an organization’s well-being, thus, researchers accuse Machs engaging
more likely in the so called counterproductive workplace behaviors (Dahling, Whitaker, &
Levy, 2009; Fox & Spector, 1999; Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006; Penney & Spector, 2002).
In 1970, the psychologists Christie and Geis made an essential contribution to the field
of research on Machiavellianism. They chose Machiavelli’s statements in order to identify
particular characteristics of individuals reflecting Machiavelli’s fundamental ideas. Their
findings introduced a series of ’Mach tests’, and served a categorization of personalities
related with Machiavellianism. As a result, Christie and Geis (1970) identified personalities,
which showed tendencies of possessing particular manners related to amoral behaviors,
manipulation, distrust of others, self-interest in achieving status for oneself, and control over
others (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009). In conclusion, the 'Mach IV’ test was developed.
Basically, Machiavellian personalities tend to agree with opinions such as: ”It is wise to flatter
important people” or “The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear”.
Since then, researchers in the field of psychology, management, and leadership were debating
the once developed test. It resulted inter alia in Dahling’s and colleagues’ (2009)
5
identification of potential weak points of that scale. They accredit the Mach IV scale weak
points such as poor item choices, dimensionality, and inconsistent reliability. They tried to fix
the test by adjusting it to their own findings in order to develop and validate a Machiavellian
Personality Scale (MPS). As a result, they came up with a categorization of four
Machiavellian dimensions: distrust of others, amoral manipulation, desire for control, and
desire for status. However, Machiavellianism has also its strengths.
2.1.1 The Strengths of Machiavellianism
According to Christie & Geis (1970), high Machiavellians perform most effectively in less
structured organizations as well as in more stressful and face-to-face competitive
environments. Such environments seem to be of high advantage for Machs, and these are, for
instance, less emotionally concerned in conflict situations, therefore individuals scoring high
on Machiavellianism can be an essential part of capacity for teamwork and overall
performance. Working in a team means working with different personalities, thus,
discomforts and negative incidents could easily result in conflicts. Being less emotionally
concerned could diminish the chance of conflicts within a team, as well as between teams and
departments. Recent findings suggest Machiavellianism also being positively related to an
emotional-manipulation scale (Boland & Ross, 2010). As such, Machs tend to know about
others emotions and might see this as opportunities and instruments to attain personal goals.
Supporting this thought, Jones & White (1985) hypothesized, that Machs would prefer to
avoid potential triggers of conflicts. Simultaneously, it means, that Machs are more likely to
notice negative emotions expressed by team members, and since these emotions represent
impediments to goal achievement (e.g. promotion), Machs would use their awarded
manipulation strategies in order to avoid, or overcome disputes. Accordingly, some authors
accept Machiavellian behavior as a sign of human intelligence (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996;
Dawkins & Krebs, 1978). This thought might be farfetched at first, however, from an
6
evolutionary biology perspective spoken, Dawkins & Krebs refer to “Machiavellianism as
Adaption and Intelligence” (p. 286). According to that, those who are capable of successfully
manipulating or mindreading others are being favored by the natural selection. Some authors,
on the other hand, do acknowledge this perspective with caution, e.g. Wilson et al. (1996)
prefer to restrict Machiavellianism into a subset of social intelligence, and are questioning, in
what settings Machiavellianism “succeed in competition with other forms of social
intelligence that are less manipulative” (p. 286). They distinguish their behavior between
different settings: acting within own, and between other groups. It is noteworthy that
Machiavellians are being “especially encouraged in leaders who are responsible for conduct
toward other groups” (p.88). This view is in line with Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli’s
notorious idea of being loyal and trustful to the own city (e.g. organization), while
simultaneously encouraging manipulative ways of conducting politics towards others (e.g.
competitors) (Wilson et al., 1996). Such settings as are very common in business
environments, particularly now, in situations where companies have to cope with threats as
financial crises and overall economic instability, and thus try to over perform competitors in
order to survive. Consequently, high competitive businesses survive more likely in such
turbulent environments; whereas less competitive ones are close to fail. Organizations need
people with a cool syndrome, who see crises as opportunities instead of threats and are
capable of working in fast changing and unstructured environments. For that purpose,
Machiavellians could be a good asset for the organization. Certainly, this can cause a negative
consequence in respect to ethical behavior, and occurs when employees are manipulating
others in order to achieve personal goals, while judging ethical violations more lenient.
2.1.2 Performance and Machiavellianism
It has to be conceded that having only people with a cool syndrome, who are comfortable with
unstructured environments, would not be enough to achieve and maintain overall
7
performance. Therefore, job performance need to be present as well, but how is
Machiavellianism linked to performance? When researchers speak of performances related to
the job, they usually take the so called task or contextual performance into account (e.g.
Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Under task performance they understand an employee’s
activity that contributes towards the technical core of an organization e.g. by providing certain
services or materials in order to implement a technological process in an effective way. On
the other hand side, contextual performance is an optional decision to carry out tasks, that are
not necessarily part of the job description, also known as extra tasks (or extra role behavior)
or performance beyond the expectations. Dahling et al. (2009) found Machiavellians not to
perceive excellent performance (pursuit of excellence) as its own reward, unless it
corresponds to other desired outcomes. However, their suggestion Machiavellianism being
negatively related to contextual performance cound not be supported. Quite the contrary was
found in respect to task performance and Machiavellianism. So, in frame of a group
discussion followed by rating participants high Machs were rated significantly higher on task
performance, than low Machs. Dahling et al. (2009) found also evidence for performance of
Machs dependent on the tenure. Task performance improved by high Machs over greater
tenures. That leaves space for interpretation, namely that Machs may use their abilities more
effectively in less structured environments with greater tenure. Contextual performance as the
challenging OCBs should be present in organizations, but in this respect Wolfson (1981)
provides evidence that Machiavellians do show less helping behaviors (this effect even
strengthenths in company with other high Machs, suggesting a higher distrust between each
other). Another not beneficial form of contextual performance that harms an organization or
other employees is known as the CWB. In contrast to the challending OCBs, Machiavellians
are prone to engage in CWBs, as stated by Fox and Spector (1999).
Dahling et al. suggested, that contextual factors as organizational politics, or
exploitable areas in the organization etc. could also be essential for performance of high
8
Machs. A charismatic manager could therefore enhance the performance of Machiavellians,
because he reflects varous types of behaviors, that stimulate OCB of his employees.
Therefore, in the following chapters this paper will propose that charismatic leadership does
enhance OCB and diminish the engagement of CWB for Machiavellian employees.
2.1.3 The Risk with Machiavellianism
In the previous chapters one might see potential benefits resulting from individuals rated high
on Machiavellianism, vice versa, those are also driven by expediency and manipulative
behavior and can create problematic situations. When people make use of such behaviors, a
company might face obstacles and negative consequences in intra-personal relationships as a
lack of team work or CWB (negative contextual performance). Negative consequences in
unstructured organizational settings in particular, can evolve, and with that being said, Machs
capture moments to exploit a company by employing behaviors ranging from stealing, coming
too late to work or from breaks to sexual harassment and violence (Fox & Spector, 1999;
Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006; Penney & Spector, 2002).
Particularly in niche industries, where subjective knowledge and experience are not
that easy to replace, organizations try to keep their flexible, competent and experienced
human capital in its own ranks. Continuity and long lasting employer-employee relationships
are therefore desirable. As mentioned before, Machiavellians are economically opportunistic
in their decisions and it is to assume, that they would leave an organization more likely than
non-Machs if a better chance to pursue their own goals arises. However, in most of the cases a
company’s success results from a broad know-how in the industry: developed procedures,
technologies, and essential decisions in crucial moments. In line with this, the extant literature
found positive relations between knowledge sharing and process performance in the frame of
New Product Development (Hong, Doll, Nahm, & Li, 2004). Apparently, Machs show less
willingness to share knowledge (Liu, 2008), general speaking in situations, where keeping the
9
knowledge for oneself serves his/her interest. This could lead to a decrease in performance
caused by a lack of good functioned teamwork and productivity.
Furthermore,
when
considering
characteristics
of
high-rated
Machiavellian
personalities, such as amoral behaviors, manipulation, distrust of others, self-interest in
achieving status for oneself, and control over others (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009), one
can assume, that those individuals might plagiarize other’s ideas to their own benefit, mislead
others into thinking that they know more about a certain topic than they actually do, or build
alliance by ignoring an organization’s goals and instead fulfilling own ones. It is surely a
challenge to prevent such ill-serving behaviors (e.g. CBW), but not impossible to evoke
commonsensible solutions. The next chapters capture the general idea that every crew on a
ship would be in a need of a captain, who directs, persuades, and manages intra-personal
issues. An organization would represent the ship and the captain would be the leader of the
staff. Leadership places a central role in firms and is vital for an organization’s stability.
2.2 Leading Machiavellians
Despite of the risks Machiavellians cause, they also could, indeed if they would like to, be a
significant asset for the company. What actions should an organization consider to achieve
this situation? The current study suggests, that one reasonable measure to prevent negative
consequences and problems brought up by Machiavellians, is to install an appropriate
leadership style in an organizational setting, which matches a Mach’s interest with those of
the organization (or team), for instance. This measure might encourage them to act in the
interest of the firm as participating in proactive behavior, or break off engaging in CWBs,
however, would transformational leadership cause such an effect?
In the literature of leadership, different leadership styles are discussed, for example
Goleman (2000) pointed out six different styles: Coercive, Authoritative/Visionary,
Affiliative, Democratic, Pacesetting, and Coaching. Even though House (1996) proposed
10
leadership effectiveness being mostly shaped by situational circumstances, Goleman reasoned
in the following, that the more styles a leader can use, the better it is. According to his results,
those leaders have the best climate and business performance, “who have mastered four or
more – especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative, and coaching styles” (p. 87). One
of these ‘bundled’ styles is known as transformational or charismatic leadership. The basic
assumption is, that especially transformational leaders do have high impacts on Machiavellian
personalities, thus, a Machiavellian might be more influenced by this type of leadership style
than non-Machiavellians because of certain strengths a transformational leader possesses.
Charismatic factors could catch in particular Machiavellian interests, either because Machs
see an own advantage by accepting the proactive requirements a leader sets, or they find more
sense in the work they are doing and use their skills in the interest of an organization
accordingly.
2.2.1 Transformational Leadership
Transformational Leadership has its roots in Max Weber’s (1947) “Model of Transaction and
Transformational Leadership Authority”. He was one of the first authors mentioning
‘charismatic’ leadership. He divided leadership firstly in charismatic, bureaucratic and
traditional leadership styles, and simultaneously reasoned, that moral values were of high
significance for the leadership-framework. Especially the difference between transformational
and transactional leadership is widely discussed among authors. Traditional leadership styles
stress particularly rational processes, whereas transformational leadership styles emphasize
follower’s emotions and values with the intention of motivating followers (Yukl, 1999). Bass
& Avolio (1990) describe transactional leaders as leaders, who exhibit measures by setting
and clarifying specific goals and outcomes, giving feedbacks, and utilizing reward systems.
On the other hand, transformational leaders additionally aim to support their followers in
11
performing beyond their expectations, which is most likely an essential key factor for success
in reference to employee’s performance (Barbuto, 2005; Bass, 1985).
According to the literature, charismatic leaders are able to transform the needs, values,
preferences and aspirations of followers from self-interests to collective interests (Shamir,
House, & Arthur, 1993; De Cremer, 2002). From Maslow’s hierarchy of needs view (1943),
transformational leadership is known for giving support to employees to reach their higher
human needs. In particular, besides the physiological (hunger, thirst), and safety needs
(security, protection), transformational leadership has the potential to recognize social needs
(being part of organization), esteem needs (status, recognition), and self-actualization. In a
nutshell, transformational leaders recognize transactional needs of employees, and also tend,
stronger than transactional leadership, to satisfy employee’s higher needs. Charismatic
leadership style could be perceived as an extended version of transactional leadership, hence,
a charismatic leadership style encompasses the recognition of certain needs better than
conventional leadership styles, what in return can improve the climate, performance and the
overall follower’s behavior. In situations, where individuals find hardly ways to satisfy their
needs, a lack of motivation could be the result. In consequence, motivation might decrease
and when unmotivated, we hardly see a meaning and sense in our activities, thus, our personal
motives to behave for the well-being of an organization could be significantly affected, and
vice versa, the probability to act counterproductive might increase.
Proactive behavior is crucial for a company’s survival, particularly in turbulent
business environments caused inter alia by financial crises and globalization. A desired
logical consequence on behalf of leaders and managers should result in growing awareness of
the destructive motivational side-effects, and activate a desire to put more effort in disabling
motivators of such destructive outcomes. Transformational leadership, that apparently has
positive effects on followers, must therefore be a thought impetus. An examination of
different leadership styles shows their strengths, weaknesses, and effects (Conger & Kanungo,
12
1987; House & Howell, 1992; Bass, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Yukl, 1999). Inter alia,
besides the skill of transforming individual’s needs, Bass’ (1985) definition of
transformational leadership considers the leader’s influence on engendering employees’ trust,
loyalty, and performance. Moreover, transformational leadership increases awareness of task
performance and focuses on organizational goals.
2.2.2 Full Range Leadership
The conceptual framework of this study builds strongly on transformational leadership and its
beneficial effects on employees. Transformational leaders could be suitable for leading
Machs, therefore it is essential to study the characteristics of a charismatic leader, which
would motivate Machiavellians to act in the interest of the organization. So, which leader
characteristics actually make Machiavellians to act in the interest of the organization?
Almost three decades ago Bass (1985) stated, that only 16 per cent of leadership’s
effectiveness can be explained by common theories. Since then a growing interest of finding
out ways of better measuring leadership’s effectiveness took place. Meanwhile the literature
on leadership provides widely accepted theories, comprising behaviors and roles of a leader.
In particular, researchers started to focus on motives, needs and individuality (Rioux &
Penner, 2001). Authors tried to determine transformational leaders by different behaviors
(Yukl, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003). Bernard Bass’
accomplishment to determine transformational and transactional behaviors resulted in a
developed instrument measuring transactional and transformational leadership behaviors,
called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, 1985). Thereby, subordinates were
asked to rate how frequently their leaders practice appropriate behaviors (Yukl, 1999). Bass &
Avolio depicted the most common leadership approaches of leaders ranging from division
managers to commanders in the military, and simultaneously looked at the theory of
transformational and transactional leadership. The result of this approach is the so called ‘Full
13
Range of Leadership’ framework. In the following this study presents four factors, which
describe a transformational leader according to the full range leadership (Judge & Piccolo,
2004; Barbuto, 2005; Yukl, 1999). It is agreed on the following four I’s:
Individualized Influence:
Individualized behavior describes the charismatic character of a leader. Manager who
exhibit this behavior appear as strong role models for their employees, in consequence
employees experience trust and sympathy towards the leader. The leader shows
followers the aimed vision and inspires people to follow through appropriate behavior.
With this behavior he symbolizes the goals and missions of the organization; trust and
confidence among employees can be strengthened. Basically, the leader sends out a
message of truly believing to do the right thing.
Inspirational Motivation:
Managers make the expectancies and instrumentalities clear in order to motivate
employees, and this is essential for motivational aspects when considering Vroom’s
Expectancy Theory, for example. I see inspirational motivation as the most critical
factor concerning transformational leadership. Successfully deploying inspirational
motivation is an essential approach towards ‘performance beyond expectations’. That
is, because a leader with inspirational motivation skills can activate an employee’s
sense of team spirit, and what is more, the leader can motivate employees to sacrifice
their self-interests for organizational interests, which comprises team work, group
achievements, feelings of being part of the organization, etc. To summarize, the leader
inspires to perform, aligns individual with organizational needs, shares his or
organizational vision, and clarifies the organization’s position in the future.
14
Intellectual Stimulation:
This behavior underlines management techniques such as brainstorming, information
sharing, employee-development towards the main organizational goals, visions, or
improvements. The creative and innovative sense of the followers can be activated,
thus, intellectual stimulation awakens critical thinking and problem solving. All in all,
intellectual stimulation encourages employees to ‘think outside the box’. It comprises
inter alia challenging old ways of doing things, or looking for better ways of doing
things and so forth. Intellectual stimulation is a strength of a leader, that activates
proactive behavior in employees, respectively.
Individualized Consideration:
In this dimension, the leader has a compassionate character. He establishes
relationships between employees, helps employees to satisfy their specific needs
(which is good for both sides), and encourages steady development of employees.
Basically, the compassionate leader functions as a coach, while at the same time
giving people the feeling of ‘being considered’. The leader can achieve additional
attention, as he puts more effort in helping individuals to achieve their needs.
Nonetheless, as Goleman (2000) describes a successful leader as someone, who can combine
simultaneously more styles, transactional components should also be present when using
transformational instruments (cf. Antonakis & House, 2002). Those components comprise a
leader’s ability to strengthen people’s self-confidence and increase the subjective change of
success. Additionally to that, together with the ability of elevating people’s needs, a
transformational leader can make it attractive for employees to increase their sense of
collective gains (De Cremer, 2002), and might elevate an employee’s selfish motives to proorganizational motives (e.g. Machs). Some authors emanate from higher motivation, and in
15
return, this can result in synergy and performance beyond expectations (Koopman, 1991;
Barbuto, 2005). Performance beyond expectations can be achieved by encouraging proactive
behavior, since charismatic leaders are known to expect followers to self-sacrifice and to
perform beyond the call of duty. They give employees meaningfulness to work, moral
purpose and sense to show more commitment without material incentives (or restructured
reward systems, that encourage proactive behavior), in particular even without the threat of
punishment (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). In general, transformational leadership is in
several studies positively associated with leading people, inter alia it engenders contributive
behavior in employees and approaches the collective gain. Earlier, this paper introduced
Machs as people who are rather detached from collective interests, especially if these
collective interests do impair their own set goals. As charismatic leadership has its strengths
in aligning interests, taking care of personal needs and bringing in sense in the work
environments, it is highly possible that especially charismatic leaders appear to be the ‘right’
managers for Machs, thus, this study took a theoretical and empirical approach to explore an
interacting effect of charismatic leaders and Machs on desirable outcomes. The next chapters
cover organizational and individual outcomes which could be affected by the above proposed
relationship. Outcomes as proactivity, CWB and their potential motivators were explored
more intensively. Theoretical support for this research will be presented in the next chapter.
3. Outcomes
3.1 Proactive Behavior at Work
During the last decades journals such as Journal of Applied Psychology, or Academy of
Management Journal had taken a keen interest to further explore proactive behavior. In
contrast to a reactive and more passive pattern of behavior, proactivity aims to contribute
towards organizational behavior (Crant, 2000). It should be noted, that researchers
differentiate between proactive and organizational citizenship behavior, however, both
16
constructs are to put into the category of extra role behaviors, which mainly contribute
towards organizational functioning. The researchers explored extra-role behavior in the
context of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). They adjudge OCB a non-rewarded
employee
behavior
that
passes
strict
job-requirements
by
simultaneously
being
organizationally functional (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). It sounds similar to
proactivity in a way, however, Morrison & Phelps argue, that the important factor of
challenging the status quo is missing, thus, a diversification of OCB in different behaviors
took place. In general, the field of proactivity is less intensively studied than the construct of
OCB, hence, in order to support my ideas in this paper I sometimes draw upon relevant
findings in the OCB literature.
A growing number of studies on proactivity concepts such as taking charge (Morrison
& Phelps, 1999), proactive personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993), voice (LePine & Van
Dyne, 2001), and personal initiative (Fay & Frese, 2001) had been published. Further articles
included inter alia theories on leadership in their explorations (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010;
De Stobbeleir, Ashford, & Sully de Luque, 2010; Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010;
Crant J. M., 2000; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Bolino, Valcea, & Harvey, 2010; Bjorkelo,
Einarsen, & Matthiesen, 2010). It should be noted that in the majority of cases proactive
behavior was associated with positive effects on an individual and an organizational level. For
instance, Thomas’ et al. (2010) study demonstrates correlations between a proactive
personality and the job satisfaction of an individual. Job satisfaction is defined as an
individual’s positive feelings about a job (Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010). These
variables were positive related to proactive behavior and are for instance number of
promotions, salary (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001), entrepreneurial success (Frese & Fay,
2001), sales volume (Crant J. M., 1995), and social networking (Thomas et al., 2010). Aside
from proactive behavior’s positive effects on career-success, authors found proactivity also to
be positive related to organizational commitment (Thomas et al., 2010), and performance
17
(Rank, Carsten, Unger, & Spector, 2007; Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Grant, Parker, &
Collins, 2009; Thompson, 2005). The above mentioned positive linkages represent individual
positive effects, and what is more, researchers found also essential benefits from an
organization’s perspective: e.g. profitability (Baer & Frese, 2003), effectiveness (Frese &
Fay, 2001), customer service, and satisfaction in teams (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Now, when
knowing the positive results caused by proactivity, one might ask: What exactly is proactive
behavior? The next chapters firstly investigate theoretical definitions and the construct of
proactivity, and secondly discuss the psychological mechanisms which increase the likelihood
of proactivity.
3.1.1 The Proactivity Construct
In Crant’s study proactivity is defined as “taking initiative in improving current circumstances
or creating new ones” (p. 436) and rather as a challenge to the status quo, than an adaption to
the presence. On the one hand there is a notion of affiliative behavior (Organ, Podsakoff, &
MacKenzie, 2006), which comprises helping behaviors, or extra-work. On the other hand
researchers speak of challenging-promotive behaviors (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean
Parks, 1995); a tendency to challenge the status quo instead of passively reacting to it. One of
the basic parts of the construct of proactivity describes Morrison & Phelps’ taking charge, an
“extra-role behavior that goes beyond role expectations in a way that is organizationally
functional” (1999, p. 403). This study points out four proactivity concepts: the beforehand
mentioned Morrison and Phelps’ concept of taking charge, personal initiative (Frese & Fay,
2001), pro-social voice (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), and proactive personality (Frese & Fay,
2001).
For instance, Frese & Fay found a positive relation between proactive personality and
change. Proactive people tend to think future oriented, have change in mind and see
opportunities, whereas reactive people (low level of proactive personality) tend to adapt to the
18
status quo. Crant (2000) describes proactive people as individuals, who “show initiative, take
action, and preserve until meaningful change occurs” (p. 439).
In order to measure a
proactive personality, Bateman & Crant (1993) developed a scale. Nowadays, this scale is
widely used among researchers and is named as the Proactive Personality Scale. Similarly, the
definition of voice has also a positive link to change. Employees perceive voice as an
opportunity to communicate a desire to improve an organization’s well-being (Detert &
Burris, 2007). It is to that extent essential, as it is seen as an attempt to change an
objectionable state of affairs (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), which aims to ask for constructive
change in the organization (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).
According to several definitions taking charge captures the notion of change, and is
additionally improving organizational issues per se. Especially during economic impacts (e.g.
in financial crises) organizations require proactive minded employees, who are willing to
challenge the presence. An extra-role behavior is demanded, and is rather to put in the
category of challenging-promotive behaviors, such as taking charge. Morrison & Phelps
(1999) reward the construct of taking charge an improvement driven and change-oriented
character, by clearly distinguishing it from the OCBs. The distinction lies in the way how
individuals handle the status quo. While OCB fits more likely in the function of maintaining
the status quo, taking charge brings about organizationally functional change, and it rather
challenges the presence.
Personal initiative is a behavior characterized by its self-starting nature, its persistence
in overcoming difficulties and a common proactive approach (Frese & Fay, 2001; Frese M. ,
Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997). People with personal initiatives think constructive and
find own ideas for improvement. In practice that could be: optimizing efficiency of obsolete
procedures, or increasing customer satisfaction in the frame of customer services.
Companies should motive their employees to behave proactively, however, individuals
decide inter alia upon expectations from the manager himself, the team, and the organizations.
19
Out of this reason, it is essential to know in which circumstances employees decide to choose
proactive measures. In which situations is proactive work behavior more likely to occur?
Researchers mention the antecedents, which might increase the likelihood of extra role
behavior. These are discussed in the following.
3.1.2 Antecedents of Proactivity
What traits or psychological mechanisms cause proactive behavior? Based on previous
research on proactivity Grant & Ashford (2008) developed an intergrative model capturing
inter alia situational antecedents that increase the likelihood of proactive behaviour. Three
situational antecedents are proposed: accountability, ambiguity, and autonomy.
Accountability stands for circumstances in which employees need to explain and
justify their actions, emotions and thoughts. It is proposed, that proactive behavior depends on
the level of accountability, thus, employees under low accountability take the safe route not to
engage in proactivity in order to avoid the chance of blame for underperformance or failures,
and hence to maintain their images (e.g. impression management). On the other hand, those
are more likely to engage in proactivity, who are held accountable for their behaviors,
emotions and thoughts. That is, because employees under high accountability perceive lower
image costs and more benefits when taking initiative (e.g. proactive behavior). Feedback
seeking is also a significant behavior that can decrease, or increase the likelihood of proactive
behavior. It decreases the likelihood for employees with low accountability, as those could
avoid feedback seeking and thus move themselves out of sight for evaluations concerning
success and performance. Individuals who are held responsible for their decisions are rather
evaluated by these, because the feedback seeking is more present. Consequently, they see
more benefits in taking initiative and simultaneously show their concern for good
performance.
20
Another situational antecedent mentioned by Grant & Ashford is ambiguity. In
ambiguous situations it is quite unclear and undefined how to act in certain circumstances. It
is rather a more creative sense and own ways of working required, than prescribed
instructions, hence, individuals make more often use of proactive behaviors. The researchers
draw upon uncertainty. They argue, that employees are motivated to reduce uncertaintly in
their work environment in order to find a meaning or purpose of their behaviors at work. By
doing so, they are eager to gather information, which includes proactive behavior as feedback
seeking or building networks etc.
The third situational antecedent presented in their study is autonomy. Similarly to
ambiguity, autonomy gives space for own problem solving solutions, so in consequence
prescribed procedures as instructions on how, what, and where to act are omitted. In such
situations employees tend to bring about own ideas, expand their roles, and show more
engagement. Thereby employees are enabled to choose procedures and work flows that fit
their own interests and skills. It is referred to confidence or experienced efficacy in reference
to outcomes.
Crant (2000) also discusses antecedents, which can be categorized into individual
differences as proactive personality, a disposition toward proactive behavior and accepted as a
stable trait in an individual (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Furthermore, a desire for feedback or
the need for achievement decribe the second set of antecedents categorized in individual
differences. Taking together, autonomy, ambiguity and accountability, as well as the trait
‘proactive personality’ are accepted antecedents of proactive behavior in employees.
Especially in vague decribed job roles, or organizationel settings or managers, which grant
autonomy and more freedom to act (e.g. charismatic leadership), employees are more likely to
use their skills in an proactive way. In contrast to proactive behavior, that can be the key for
21
high performance and therefore a trump to compete in challenging environments, employees
might also engage in the so called counterproductive work behaviors.
3.2 Counterproductive Work Behaviors
Contrary to proactive (or productive) behaviors, employees might also engage in the so called
counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). Accordingly, there is a growing interest in the
research on this topic (Fodchuk, 2007; Spector & Fox, 2005; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006;
Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Both terms, proactive and counterproductive work behaviors,
share the thought of volunteering in behaviors: the OCB is a productive and desired behavior,
whereas CWB on the contrary is characterized as a destructive one. What are the
characteristics of CWB and how crucial are these?
Robinson & Bennett describe CWB as a voluntary behavior violating essential
organizational norms, and harming the well-being of employees, the organization, or both.
Accordingly, many authors categorize CWB into behaviors aiming to harm people in
organizations (CWBI), as well as the organization itself (CWBO) (Spector & Fox, 2005;
Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006). In practice such behaviors range
from violence, theft, sexual harassment, gossip, blame towards coworkers to extended breaks,
coming late to work and so on. At this point the question arises: What exactly motivates
employees to behave counterproductive?
One of the triggers is organizational injustice. It occurs for instance, when employees
perceive a lack of fairness or lack of justice within organizations. An essential factor
responsible for that can be leadership, so Tepper (2000). He investigated abusive leaders and
found them to be responsible for emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and depression of employees,
whereas emotional exhaustion, for instance, reduced involving in proactive behaviors
(Cropanzano et al., 2003). However, before heading to explore a transformational leaders
22
influence on employees, Machiavellians respectively, this paper contributes to and replicates
the research given on Machiavellians and potential outcomes as proactivity or CWB.
3.3 Machiavellians and Outcomes
Prior in this study a literature review on the term Machiavellianism was provided. Such
characteristics evoke a negative vibe, accordingly, the prior research found unpopular
behaviors to be linked to Machiavellianism, inter alia manipulation, selfishness, amoral and
unethical behaviors (e.g. Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009; Christie & Geis, 1970). Those
individuals are more likely to make profit out of opportunities to steal from others (Fehr,
Samson, & Paulhus, 1992), are linked to maxizing own profits (Sakalaki, Richardson, &
Thepaut, 2007), lying (Vleeming, 1979), cheating (Bogart, Geis, Levy, & Zimbardo, 1970)
and job dissatisfaction (Hunt & Chonko, 1984). These findings all lead to the indication of
Machs being prone to engage in diverse behaviors that are categorized as CWBs (Fox &
Spector, 1999). Related literature is also examining Machiavellianism and helping behaviors
(Wolfson, 1981). In her experimental paper, low-Machs offered help significantly more often
than high-Machs. High-Machs instead prefer to follow the self-set goals and ignore ethical
standards. They would be less interested in any kind of extra-role behavior that is not
contributing to their personal goals. To test these results the present study replicates findings
of previous research. The first hypothesis captures the ideas of Fox & Spector (1999) and
Dahling et al. (2009), Machiavellianism being postitively linked to CWBs, and consequently,
the second hypothesis suggests Machiavellians being negatively linked to proactivity:
H1: Machiavellianism is positively correlated with CWBs.
H2: Machiavellianism is negatively correlated with proactivity.
23
It is possible, that leadership would activate motivators that lead either to proactivity, or
CWB. Rioux & Penner’s (2001) study on motives provides a good insight in, and definitions
of each of the motives that are based on prior research in this area. In their paper they argue,
that individuals consciously choose to engage in behaviors that benefit the organization,
because it could help them to satisfy certain needs. What are these mechanisms introduced by
Rioux and Penner?
3.4 Personal Motives and Outcomes
There might be a possible mechanism, with which transformational leadership may influence
an employee’s willingness to be proactive. People have different motives, so some are driven
by the desire to impress whereas others tend to help their coworkers or the organization.
Mainly, authors identified three mechanisms, which may lead to citizenship behavior (Rioux
& Penner, 2001): A desire of an employee to do well in a company and to show pride and
commitment to the organization was labeled as Organizational Concern (OC). An employee’s
need to establish positive relationships with others and a desire to be helpful was labeled as
Prosocial Values (PV) motives. Both motives, pro-social and organizational concern motives,
were positively associated with OCB. Individuals driven by these motives want to understand
how the organization works, they want to be involved in the decision making process, to feel
commitment to the company, to be concerned about other people’s feelings, and they want to
show more often helping behaviors. Personal motives can be accountable for decisions we
make in respect to our behavior. As noted before, there is a small difference between OCB
and proactivity. To strengthen the argumentation of this paper the associations in regards to
pro-organizational motives will be tested in the next hypotheses, thus, it is not surprising
when pro-organizational motives increase the likelihood of proactivity, and contrariwise
decrease the risk of CWB of employees:
24
H3: Pro-organizational motives are positively correlated with proactivity.
H4: Pro-organizational motives are negatively correlated with CWBs.
The third and last factor in their study was named Impression Management (IM). This motive
appears to comprise a wish to reflect a positive image and to avoid a negative one; it
represents a desire to avoid looking bad in front of supervisors or colleagues, and additionally
a desire to receive rewards. Consequently, individuals might also be more motivated by
impression management, than by motives as organizational concern or prosocial values
(Becker & O’Hair, 2007; Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009). They could have certain
motivation drivers to impress. For example, Leary & Kowalski (1990) presented three
impression management motivators, which a person can have: goal relevance of impressions,
value of desired goals, and discrepancy between desired and current image. The motivations
might differ in different settings an organization provides. According to Christie & Geis
(1970), people high in Machiavellianism are more likely to evaluate the impressions they
create as essential to reach their goals. Normally, Machs would rather try to impress than to
actually act. With impression management Machs manage the impression others have about
them, so they engage in OCB with the only purpose to create a positive image of a good
citizenship member. This could reflect in CWBs, for instance in situations, where Machs offer
help while assuming that it would be declined, or try to show proactive behavior only when it
is recognized and rewarded (Becker & O’Hair, 2007). In general, researchers have noted that
projected citizenship behaviors can evolve from self-serving and impression management
grounded reasons (e.g. Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Eastman, 1994). Machs
hide their real behaviors, and instead try to make a good impression, while still aiming on
their personal goals and gains, thus, I expect impression management being negatively
correlated with proactivity and positively with CWBs.
25
H5: Impression Management motive is positively correlated with CWBs.
H6: Impression Management motive is negatively correlated with proactivity.
3.5 Impression Management and the Role of Transformational Leadership
Voluntary behaviors associated with constructive benefits for individuals and organizations
are highly desired by companies because of the significant advantages such behaviors can
cause, however, extra-role behavior requires also appropriate people and environment settings
in order to be present. The organizational setting should promote behaviors as proactivity, and
delimit counterproductive impression management actions of employees, however, people
need to be committed and willed to sacrifice self-interests for the benefit of others (e.g.
company, co-workers). A transformational leader who follows a certain vision or goal, who
acknowledges proactive behaviors, and who aligns personal interests with collective ones
would decrease the scope for impression management. An employee would evaluate the
impression they cause, and consequently adjust it to the expectations a charismatic leader sets.
H7: Transformational leadership is negatively correlated with the impression management
motive.
So, as a charismatic leader promotes collective values, and vice versa demotes selfish
attitudes and behaviors while being a role model for the employees, a decrease in impression
management motives of employees is expected. In general, people behave counterproductive
when the chance of getting caught and punished is low. Particularly Machs share a general
negative view on humans (Christie & Geis, 1970), are also less willing to share knowledge
(Liu, 2008), and are associated with impression management tacics, thus, Machiavellians
engage more often in counterproductive ways, when they find the opportunity for it. There
might be a possibility that transformational leaders could better detect impression
26
management techniques of their employees than non-transformational leaders. Thereby,
transformational leadership would shift down an employee’s impression management
motives, and Machs would perceive a higher chance of getting caught. Consequently, it is to
assume that a charismatic leader would be suitable for leading Machiavellians in
organizations. Accordingly, to explore the influence of transformational leaders on Machs
more in depth, the next chapter covers ideas containing hypotheses in respect to
transformational leadership as a moderating variable, Machiavellianism and outcomes as
proactivity, CWB and personal motives.
4. Interacting Effect of Transformational Leaders on Machiavellians
The theoretical overview in the previous section contains the prerequisites necessary for
understanding the concept developed in this study. In the following this paper presents
hypotheses examining correlations between Machiavellianism and its outcomes. There might
be a context, which hides behind the charismatic leadership’s positive effect on work
behavior. Out of this reason this study tested also relations between Machiavellianism, proorganizational motives, impression management, proactive behavior, and CWBs followed by
an examination of the interacting effect of transformational leadership on Machiavellianism
and proactive, as well as counterproductive work behavior.
Charismatic leadership has been explored to be linked to organizational and individual
positive effects, e.g. to success (Cho, Park, & Michel, 2011), proactive behavior (Belschak &
Den Hartog, 2010), or team proactive performance (Williams, Parker, & Turner, 2010).
Proactivity and transformational leadership seem to synergize, however, is this also applicable
to Machiavellian personalities? If Machiavellians find an interest to follow transformational
leaders, will that simultaneously reflect in their attitude towards proactive- and
counterproductive work behavior?
27
Mach’s characteristics comprise inter alia impression management techniques, which
are proposed to be positively related with CWB and negatively with proactivity. A Mach
could engage in OCB in order to cover the real intentions, because according to prior
literature impression management is positively correlated with altruistic behavior; a
dimension of organizational citizenship (Wayne & Green, 1993). It is therefore a challenge to
differentiate these both constructs from each other, since proactively helping out a supervisor
could simultaneously be impression management or an act of OCB (Bolino M. C., 1999).
Impression management appears to be a crucial motive in respect to desired outcomes (e.g.
proactive behavior), since when not noticing impression management tactics, employees feel
more safe to engage more often in those and consequently, more CWB and less proactivity
could be the result. Thus, leadership has a central role here. Based on charismatic leadership’s
theory this study provides assumptions supporting a proposed interacting effect, which may
address especially Machiavellians. The idea, high transformational leadership being a possible
measure for enhancing proactive behavior and diminishing CWB of Machs, needs to be
explored by somewhat more.
A deeper investigation on leadership and its effects on Machiavellian members are
insofar significant, as strategic prevention-measures of CWBs could be developed.
Considering theories of transformational leadership and Antonakis’ & House’ (2002)
statement, namely that the theory of full range leadership would explain the most leadership
actions towards subordinates, one could acknowledge transformational leadership a positive
effect as avoiding, or at least managing CWBs. Therefore, it is to assume, that highMachiavellians in high-transformational leadership condition will most likely engage more in
proactive and less in counterproductive behaviors as opposed to high-Machiavellians in the
low-transformational leadership condition, which perform less in the proactive way and more
in CWBs. What could be the leadership’s factor that causes this effect? In the next chapter
28
this study examines transformational leadership’s characteristics, which infuse employees
with the motivation to either be proactive or less counterproductive.
4.1 Influence through Inspirational Motivation
A high-charismatic leader influences also a sensible feature of the Machiavellian construct,
namely that of being selfish and manipulative. Deriving from the full range leadership theory,
a leader would use inspirational motivation in order to activate a Mach’s sense of team spirit
and align their interests with organizational interests. By doing so, the leader would affect a
Machiavellian also indirectly. Indirectly, since people establish and affirm an identity for
themselves: we are doing things because of what we are, so we are self expressive in our
nature (Shamir et al., 1993). Machs are more likely to exhibit self-monitoring behaviors and
this leads to an indication, that Machiavellians tend to monitor themselves in order to achieve
a desired appearance within the organization or in front of the leader (Reimers & Barbuto,
2002). Hence, giving the organizational setting with a transformational leader and a
Machiavellian follower, a high Mach would rather understand what behavior the leader
demands from him than a low Mach, and accordingly alter and express his behavior in order
to achieve personal interests. So, if reward systems are aimed to activate proactive behavior
(or to demotivate CWBs), a Machiavellian, who is driven by his economical opportunism,
would behave correspondingly and engage more in proactive and less in counterproductive
work behaviors.
Besides, a charismatic leader is “presumed to strengthen follower’s belief in the
necessity and propriety of standing up and being counted” (Shamir et al., 1993, p. 582).
Making the effort more meaningful to the follower (e.g. increasing the intrinsic valence of
effort) may result in Mach’s increased involvement, because it could turn to a personal
interest under the influence of inspirational motivation. An organization would steer
Machiavellian needs (e.g. manipulation, control over others) in a proactive approach towards
29
organizational interests as customer satisfaction, hence, it is to expect that the motivation to
be counterproductive would decrease. This would comply with the idea of Niccolò di
Bernardo dei Machiavelli that suggests to be loyal, and trustful to the own city, while
simultaneously making use of manipulative ways towards others (Wilson et al., 1996). In such
scenarios, where personal interests are consistent with those of the company or group,
followers may even benefit from a Machiavellian pursuit of a personal goal (e.g. Marrs,
2000). Besides inspirational motivation, a charismatic leader would affect Machiavellians
through intellectual stimulation.
4.2 Influence through Intellectual Stimulation
With intellectual stimulation a leader encourages employees to think outside the box and to
challenge old ways of doing things. That means that a creative and innovative sense is
required, and simultaneously, a charismatic leader would target the proactive dimension of
personal initiative, since people who show behavior associated with personal initiative think
constructive and find own ideas to improve things. In general, those are self-starting in their
nature and persist in overcoming difficulties. This complies with the proactive behaviors
taking charge and personal initiative, where self-starting approaches, flexibility in challenging
the status quo, and the ability in working in such high-pressured and fast changing
environments is required. As transformational leadership is more appropriate under
exceptional conditions like crises of high levels of uncertainty, it may affect Machs to that
extent, as these are also significantly flexible in handling structured and unstructured tasks in
high-pressured and fast changing environments.
Another point of view is, that high-Machs usually aim to achieve higher needs as high
self-esteem and self-confidence, and are able to manipulate others even in power vacuums
(Tosi & Mero, 2003). Simultaneously, charismatic leaders do “enhance self-esteem by
expressing high expectations of the followers and confidence in the follower’s ability to meet
30
such expectations” (Shamir et al., 1993, p. 582). By giving the opportunity to fulfill the
desired needs, noticing that Machs are known to be highly goal oriented when pursuing own
interests (e.g. ‘self-esteem’), a transformational leader would get at least an increased
attention of Machs to behave as required. Thus, since transformational leaders are associated
with helping employees to live and achieve their higher needs (e.g. self-esteem), an alignment
of personal and collective goals of Machs is more likely to achieve in high transformational
leadership settings, than under conditions of low-transformational leadership. Given the
findings, that individuals with high self-esteem also tend to avoid counterproductive
behaviors at work (Hoffman & Dilchert, 2012, p. 559), this paper suggests transformational
leadership being an appropriate measure to enhance proactivity and to diminish CWBs. Thus,
Machs under the supervision of high-transformational leaders are expected to behave more
proactive, than under the supervision of low-transformational leaders.
4.3 Influence through Individualized Influence and Individualized Consideration
Williams (2010) discovered that the most proactive teams are those with higher rated
transformational leaders. With individualized influence and inspirational motivation
charismatic leaders act as role models, inspire to follow, to self-sacrifice for the team and to
perform beyond the expectations. Because role modeling (individualized influence) gets
employees to imitate leaders behavior (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999), and transformational
leadership is likely to enhance proactivity (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Strauss, Griffin, &
Rafferty, 2009; Den Hartog, De Hoogh, & Keegan, 2007; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie,
2006), an increase in proactivity and decrease in CWB is expected. Furthermore, supervisors
play an essential role in employee’s behaviors, especially in the frame of leader-employee
relationships. Research found crucial relations there, for instance higher chances of CWB (for
an organization) were found, when the level of leader-member exchange was low (Townsend,
2000). On the other hand, high leader-member exchange was negatively correlated with
31
CWBs. Similarly, another study documented positive outcomes associated with good
supervisor-member relationships. These are member’s satisfaction, promotions, and
citizenship behavior (Bauer & Green, 1996). A somewhat similar approach took Giesburg
(2001) in his work titled “The role of communication in preventing workplace sabotage”. His
study indicates employee’s wants to improve the communication, because subordinates
believe, that an improved communication would decrease CWBs. Accordingly, in the
dimension of individualized consideration, a charismatic leader takes the role in establishing
and maintaining good relationships and basically acting as a coach, which creates the feeling
in employees of being considered.
5. Moderating Effects
Taking the above mentioned charismatic leader’s characteristics into consideration, it is
expected, that transformational leadership is able to promote proactivity, and at the same time
diminish CWBs. In the following this paper presents hypotheses, to test the beforehand
formulated assumptions in regards to transformational leadership’s interacting effect on
Machiavellianism, proactivity, and CWB.
5.1 Transformational Leadership, Machiavellianism, and Outcomes
Dionne et al. (2002) acknowledge leadership being important for subordinate’s performance
and satisfaction, and simultaneously having a strong influence on deviant acts and leaving
intentions on employees (Marrs, 2000). Fodchuk (2007) points at literature’s findings in
regard to predictors of proactivity: these are organizational justice, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment, quietly the opposite predictors of CWB. At this point this study
refers to transformational leadership and its association to promote organizational
commitment and needs satisfaction in employees, and also its disapproval with CWBs in the
32
working place. Since transformational leadership is linked to a wide range of desired
outcomes for both, the individual and organization, I argue that there is an essential
interacting effect of transformational leaders on employees’ work behaviors.
The in the previous chapter presented transformational leadership’s dimensions of
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized influence and consideration,
would result in an increased proactive behavior, and vice versa, a decreased CWB in
employees. In particular, Machiavellian motivational aspects as self-expression, their link to
impression management and counterproductive work behaviors, as well as self-esteem, are
potential reasons why high-transformational leaders could have a stronger effect on highMachs, than on low-Machs. This could have reasons as selfish goals, which Machs pursue or
a higher motivation to fake, than to actually be really involved in pro-organizational
measures. Low-Machs do not report such a high urge to pursue individual goals or to engage
in counterproductive work behaviors, as high-Machs do. Rather high-Machs than low-Machs
would use the chance to pursue own goals instead of the collective ones.
On the other hand side, high-Machs are less likely to be proactive. For instance, when
following the proactive roots a transformational leader sets, a high-Mach can assume to be
more likely perceived valuable for the leader when emulating proactive behaviors. Their selfmonitoring skills and their higher need for self-esteem would contribute to this assumption.
Transformational leadership, known to promote proactivity, will consequently have a higher
impact on high-Machs, than on low-Machs, as those are anyway less selfish and hence engage
more likely in proactive behavior.
H8: Transformational Leadership will moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism
and proactivity such that high Machiavellians will engage more in proactivity in a hightransformational
leadership setting,
but
in a low-transformational
setting
high-
Machiavellians will engage less in proactivity, than low-Machiavellians.
33
H9: Transformational Leadership will moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism
and counterproductive work behavior such that in a low-transformational leadership setting
participants high in Machiavellianism will engage in more counterproductive work behaviors
than in a high-transformational leadership setting.
The exploration of the moderation effects a charismatic leadership would cause will show,
that transformational leadership is a crucial factor for high-Machiavellian behavior.
5.2 Transformational Leadership, Machiavellianism and Motives
An employee might be influenced by supervisor’s attitudes and emotional reactions in regards
to certain behaviors. Recent evidence shows a significant relationship between leadership and
motives to engage in helping behaviors (Halbesleben, Bolino, Bowler, & Turnley, 2010),
thus, a transformational leadership’s reducing effect on CWBs might be caused by the
influence of individual motives. In contrast to a transformational leader, an authoritarian
transactional leader does not necessarily rate employee’s performances by OCB or proactive
behavior, but charismatic leaders. They acknowledge ‘helping behaviors’, and consequently
accept it as job performance (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). As a consequence,
rather a charismatic leader would transform an individual’s unproductive motives into proorganizational motives, than a non-charismatic leader. However, why would transformational
leadership affect Machiavellian motives in particular? Becker & O’Hair (2007) found
evidence for a relationship between Machiavellianism and their motives, thus,
Machiavellianism was significantly positively associated with the motive of IM, and as
further assumed, Machs were negatively associated with PV and OC motives. Apparently
high-Machs know how to impress by avoiding collective goals and simultaneously pursuing
individual goals. A high-Mach would be more affected by transformational leadership, since
charismatic leaders are known to transform an individual’s selfish decisions (e.g. impression
34
management) into more collective-oriented, or self-sacrificing motives in social dilemmas (De
Cremer, 2002). Furthermore, as proactive behavior is acknowledged and visible to a
transformation leader, a Mach would feel a higher risk to impress and instead engage more
likely in the collective goals. Because low-Machs do not engage in IM to such an extent as
high-Machs do, a transformational leader would have a stronger influence on high-Machs
impression management motives.
It is assumed, that due to a charismatic leaders’ influence, a Machiavellian would be
more affected by pro-organizational motives, than by impression management motives.
Accordingly, the schematic of this chapter suggests that the relationship between
Machiavellianism and motives may differ at different levels of the leadership style. In other
words, high-Machs may be more strongly associated with pro-organizational, and less with
impression management motives under conditions of high-transformational leadership,
compared to conditions of low-transformational leadership. This assumption provided an
impetus for the research presented in the following, thus, the present study empirically tested
this assumption by looking at different levels of transformational leadership and it’s influence
on personal motives of high-Machs, respectively.
H10: Transformational Leadership will moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism
and Impression Management such that subjects scoring high in Machiavellianism will score
lower in Impression Management when in a high-transformational leadership setting, but
higher when in a low-transformational leadership setting.
H11: Transformational Leadership will moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism
and pro-organizational motives such that subjects scoring high in Machiavellianism will
display higher pro-organizational motivs scores in a high-transformational leadership
setting, but less in a low-transformational leadership setting.
35
6. Method
In the following paragraphs the empirical procedure of the underlying research is presented.
To test these hypotheses I conducted one study, guided by individuals’ attributes in regards to
personality and behavior at the workplace. In detail, the following section provides
information on how this research was carried out, beginning with the description of the used
sample, presenting the measurements considered in the analyses and ending with the results of
the analyses.
6.1 Sample and Procedure
This paper presents a quantitative research design, using besides paper versions also a free
online survey service to gather data effectively and efficiently. The data were obtained from
my personal network, this included diverse industries, organizations, and a vocational
business school located in Germany (Berufsschule Schwandorf), asking the respondents to
participate in a project named “Leadership and Initiative in Organizations”, carried out by a
research team of the Amsterdam Business School of the University of Amsterdam. The
participants were asked to give a separate link or questionnaire with a mutual code of eight
characters to their colleague or supervisor. The coding was important for the data analyses, so
that it would be clear which questionnaires represent self- and peer-raters. While
Machiavellianism, CWB, personal motives, and transformational leadership were self-rated
(respondent rated his supervisor/colleague and himself), proactive behavior was rated by both,
the supervisor/colleague of the respondent, and the participant himself. In order to avoid
manipulated results, the confidentiality and anonymity were stressed. Only matched
questionnaires (matched codes) were considered in the analyses. All participants filled in the
questionnaire on a voluntary basis.
A total of 104 employees and either their colleagues or supervisors filled in the
questionnaires. The industries the employees worked in were very diverse. It ranged from IT,
36
over Banking, Real Estate, Human Capital Management to Healthcare and Hospitality. The
mean age of employees was 27 (SD = 6.67). Of all employees who filled in the questionnaire
55.8 % were male and 44.2 % female. The peer-raters were 65.4 % male and 35.6 % female.
The average tenure in the organization the participants were employed in was 3 years and 4
months (3.25).
6.2 Measurement of Variables
In this study the items were administered in English and German. All responses were given on
a seven-point scale (1= “completely disagree” (German: “trifft ueberhaupt nicht zu”)) to
7=completely agree (German: “trifft voll und ganz zu”)). For the present research seven
variables were used from the questionnaire: Transformational Leadership, Machiavellianism,
Proactivity (taking charge, personal initiative), counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) and
motives
(organizational
concern,
prosocial
values,
impression
management).
Transformational leadership was measured by eleven internally consistent items (Cronbach’s
Alpha = 0.88). Items were taken from a validated Dutch leadership questionnaire
(Charismatic Leadership in Organizations (CLIO); De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman,
2004). Proactivity was based on the measures used by Morrison & Phelps (1999) for ‘taking
charge’ and by Frese et al. (1997) ‘personal initiative’. These were asked by the employee and
his/her colleague or supervisor and were consistent (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.846 for ‘personal
initiative’ and 0.873 for ‘taking charge’). Machiavellianism was measured by ten items
(Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.8) based on the Mach-IV scale by Christie & Geis (1970).
Counterproductive work behavior was measured by eleven items (e.g. “Intentially wasting
material/assets of the organization”), the items were also internally consistent (Cronbach’s
Alpha = 0.861). The motives ‘organizational concern’ and ‘prosocial values’ were
summarized into ‘pro-organizational motives’ (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.799) and ‘impression
management’ showed also consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.799). Each motive consisted of
four items in the survey, which are based on the measurements used by Rioux & Penner
(2001).
37
7. Results
This study used descriptive statistics, reliability analyses, correlation analyses, and moderated
multiple regression analyses to explore the interaction relationships. Firstly, basic descriptive
statistics were run. To run the statistics the mean of all values belonging to each variable was
calculated. The means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations of each variable are
given in Table 1. The correlations between variables of this study have been explored by
using bivariate correlations (Pearson Correlation analyses). To test the moderation hypotheses
a multiple linear regression was applied. Results of the above mentioned analyses are
presented in this section. All analyses were performed using the software PASW Statistics 18
(before: SPSS 18.0). To illustrate the interaction effect the program ModGraph was used.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and coefficient alpha reliabilities
Mean
S.D.
1. Transformational Leadership
Variable (Mean)
4.63
0.96
2. Machiavelliansim
4.15
1.00
.175
3. Proactivity
4.62
0.63
0.32**
4. CWB
1.92
0.76 -0.45**
5. Pro-organizational Motives
4.91
0.90
0.45**
6. Impression Motive
4.27
1.49
-0.23*
1
2
3
4
5
6
.013
0.19* -0.44**
.035
0.39** -0.34**
-.015 -0.50**
0.48**
-.059
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
N = 104
7.1 Correlations
To test the proposed relationships between all variables a Pearson Correlation analysis has
been conducted: transformational Leadership, Machiavellianism, proactivity, CWBs, proorganizational motives (pro social motives, and organizational concern), and the impression
management motive. The results (see table 1) of the correlation analyses support H1
indicating a low positive correlation (r = 0.19, n = 104, p < 0.05) between Machiavellianism
38
and CWBs. However, a significant relationship between Machiavellianism and proactivity
was not discovered, which simultaneously rejects H2. This study suggested pro-organizational
motives being positively correlated with proactivity, and negatively with CWB, and on the
other hand side impression management being positively correlated to CWB and negatively to
proactivity. Supporting H3, pro-organizational motives are significantly positive correlated
with proactivity (r = 0.39, n = 104, p < 0.01), and supporting H4, negatively with CWBs (r = 0.34, n = 104, p < 0.01). As also assumed, impression management is negatively correlated
with proactivity (r = - 0.50, n = 104, p < 0.01) and positively with CWB (r = 0.48, n = 104, p
< 0.01). The results presented above support the formulated hypotheses 5 and 6. Lastly,
transformational leadership was expected to diminish impression management motives of
employees (H7), and as assumed, the results supported also this idea (r = - 0.23, n = 104, p <
0.05).
7.2 Testing the Moderation
Aside from testing the variables for correlations, this paper applied a multiple regression in
order to test the underlying moderation hypotheses (H8 – H11). Four separate multiple
regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses. In this section the hypotheses
relate to transformational leadership’s interacting effect on Machiavellianism and work
related behaviors. By performing a multiple regression analyses the relationship between a
dependent variable (continuous) and one or more independent variables can be explored
(Pallant, 2007). In order to perform the analyses, the dependent (centered) variables were
entered to the regression standardized values of the moderator and independent variable, and
the product of the standardized values was computed. The results are provided in chapter 7.
7.3 The Model Assumptions
In the majority of cases statistical tests rely upon certain assumptions, otherwise Type I or
Type II errors, or wrong estimations of significance can occur. In order to conduct regression
39
analyses that is trustworthy, certain assumptions were considered. The first assumption relates
to the sample size. According to Pallant (2007), the sample size should be minimum N > 50 +
8m (while m represents the number of independent variables). In this paper the assumption is
met, as a sample size equals N=104 (requirement: 104 > 50 + 16). The model was tested on
four dependent variables: proactivity, counterproductive work behaviors, pro-organizational
and impression management motive. The normality assumption must be met, therefore the
instrument called ‘Normal Probability Plot’ was used, thereby, a reasonably straight line
would suggest a normal distribution (Pallant, 2007). Although the generated scatterplots show
several outliers, the maximum cook’s distance is for each dependent variable below 1,
therefore the outliers do not cause a problem in this test. Before creating interaction terms,
independent variables were centered and standardized to correct for multicollinearity that
occurs when testing interacting relationships among continuous variables. Multicollinearity
exists in the case, when independent variables show high correlations (r > 0.9). This
assumption in this paper is met (r = 0.175). The standardized residuals are roughly
rectangularly distributed along the 0 point, and there is no clear or systematic pattern visible,
thus, the assumptions are met (Pallant, 2007). By subtracting the sample mean from the
chosen independent variables, the variables were centered. Thereby, each of the chosen
variable shows a mean of zero, however, the sample distribution remains unchanged. By
multiplying the centered Machiavellianism score with the centered transformational
leadership score an interaction term was computed. For the illustration of the significant
interaction effects a program named ModGraph-I was used. This Excel-based program allows
to compute cell means for the graphical display of moderation analyses (Jose, 2008).
7.4 Results Moderation Hypothesis 8
Proactivity = b0 + b1*Transformational leadership + b2*Machiavellianism + Error i
40
When evaluating the proposed model, the given R Square indicates that 26.6 % of the
variance in the outcome variable is explained. The given ANOVA table 2 below shows a
significant model (F (3, 100) = 12,059, p-value of 0.00). The interaction effect was found to
be significant with a p-value of 0.00, indicating transformational leadership being a moderator
on the relationship between Machiavellianism and proactivity. The positive coefficients (B) of
0.266 in the overall model express, that the interaction variable is positive related to the
outcome or dependent variable. The multiple regression analyses supports hypothesis 8 thus,
transformational leadership will moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism and
proactivity. The results show a significant moderating effect, hence, as higher the mean of
transformational leadership, the higher is a relationship between high-Machiavellianism and
proactivity.
Table 2
Model Summary
Model
R
1
R Square
,515
a
Adjusted R
Std. Error of the
Square
Estimate
,266
,244
,54412
ANOVA
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Regression
10,710
3
3,570
Residual
29,606
100
,296
Total
40,316
103
F
12,059
Sig.
,000b
a. Dependent Variable: Proactivity
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transformational Leadership x Machiavellianism, Machiavellianism,
Transformational Leader
Coefficients
41
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
t
Sig.
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
4,573
,054
Machiavellianism
-,044
,054
,272
,266
Transformational
1
Std. Error
Leadership
Beta
84,411
,000
-,070
-,800
,426
,058
,417
4,672
,000
,056
,414
4,713
,000
Transformational
Leadership x
Machiavellianism
a. Dependent Variable: Proactivity
Hypothesis 8
5.5
Proactivity
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
low
med
high
Machiavellianism
Transformational Leadership
high
low
Figure 1 The relationship between Machiavellianism and Proactivity at high and low levels of transformational
leadership.
Figure 1 provides an illustration of the Machiavellianism x transformational Leadership
interaction with proactivity as the outcome variable. As can be seen, high-Machiavellians
have a stronger positive relationship with proactivity in high-transformational leadership
settings, but in a low-transformational leadership setting, high-Machiavellians engage less in
proactivity.
42
7.5 Results Moderation Hypothesis 9
CWB = b0 + b1*Transformational leadership + b2*Machiavellianism + Error i
Hypothesis 7 was formulated to examine whether transformational leadership has an influence
on Machiavellianism and their attitude towards counterproductive work behavior. The R
square of the model is examined. This indicates that 35.2 % of the variance of the outcome
variable is explained by the model (Appendix ‘Hypothesis 9’). The model found to be
significant (F (3, 100) = 18.126, p-value of 0.00). All the variables are making a contribution
to the prediction of the engagement in counterproductive work behaviors. Furthermore, the
results show that transformational leadership provides the strongest contribution to
counterproductive work behavior with a beta of -0.445, and p-value of 0.00. The negative
coefficient (B) of -0.214, and p-value of 0.001 in the overall model express, that the
interaction is negative related to the outcome variable. Thus, the multiple regression analyses
supports hypothesis 9, stating, that transformational leadership will moderate the relationship
between Machiavellianism and counterproductive work behavior. It can be concluded, that as
higher the mean of transformational leadership, the less there is a relationship between high
means of Machiavellianism and counterproductive work behavior. An illustration can be
found in Appendix (Hypothesis 9).
7.6 Results Moderation Hypothesis 10
IM = b0 + b1*Transformational leadership + b2*Machiavellianism + Error i
Using multiple regression analyses, hypothesis 8 was tested for a moderating effect of
transformational leadership on the relationship between Machiavellianism and the impression
management motive. The examined R square (0.179) indicates that 17.9 % of the variance of
the outcome variable is explained by the model (Appendix ‘Hypothesis 10’). The model was
also found to be significant (F (3, 100) = 7.273, p-value of 0.00). Thereby, transformational
leadership shows the strongest contribution to impression management, hence, the interacting
43
variable’s negative coefficient (B) of -0.558, and p-value 0.00 in the overall model express,
that the interaction is negative related to the outcome variable. The multiple regression does
support the proposed hypothesis 10. It can be concluded, that as higher the mean of
transformational leadership and Machiavellianism, the less contribution towards impression
management can be found. An illustration of this effect can be found in Appendix
(Hypothesis 10).
7.7 Results Moderation Hypothesis 11
Pro-organizational Motives = b0 + b1*Transformational leadership + b2*Machiavellianism
+ Error i
When evaluating the proposed model, the given R Square indicates that 22.9 % of the
variance in the dependent variable is explained and the model is significant (F (3, 100) =
9.897, p-value of 0.00). However, the interaction effect is found to be statistically
insignificant with a p-value of 0.062. Thus, transformational leadership is not a moderator and
the hypothesis 11 is not supported by the given results. Results can be found in Appendix
(Hypothesis 11).
8. Discussion
The previous chapter reported statistical tests. The results were presented, which enabled to
test the proposed hypotheses, thus, this chapter will discuss major findings in the following.
In the first part of this discussion I will discuss hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6 and H7,
and the proposed moderation hypotheses H8, H9, H10 and H11. This includes the
consideration of different transformational leadership’s settings (low, high) and their
moderating effects on the relationship between Machiavellianism and proactive behavior,
CWB, as well as the impression management motives and pro-organizational motives.
Support was found for most of the suggested hypotheses. In the second part of the discussion
44
limitations linked to this paper and recommendations for future research are proposed,
followed by the conclusion consisting of theoretical and practical implications of the present
research.
8.1 Research findings and theoretical implications
This study replicated inter alia findings in reference to Machiavellianism. The investigation
attempted to give a broader understanding of the construct of Machiavellianism and it’s
attitudes towards certain behaviors and preferred motives that organizational members would
have for engaging in proactivity. Taking former findings related to Machiavellianism into
consideration (e.g. Fox & Spector, 1999; Dahling et al., 2009, Wolfson, 1981), it was
expected to find a positive relation to CWBs, and vice versa a negative relation to proactivity.
Since Machiavellians tend to engage in amoral behaviors, as well as in maximizing own
profits at the expense of others, and rather to have more interest in CWBs, than proactivity.
The present results do support a positive relation to CWB, however, a direct negative relation
to proactivity could not be proven.
Replicating previous research findings (e.g. Rioux & Penner, 2001) pro-organizational
motives were expected to be positively related to proactivity (hypothesis 3), and vice versa,
negatively to CWB (hypothesis 4). This paper provides as expected for both hypotheses
statistical support. Thus, if employees share pro-organizational motives, then they are more
involved in proactive behaviors as taking charge and personal initiative, and simultaneously
less in CWB. However, citizenship behaviors could also be self-serving and grounded on
impression management (e.g. Bolino et al., 2004; Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons,
1994; Eastman, 1994). In other words, an employee might engage in proactivity for selfserving motives to display an image, which a supervisor wants to see. Based on prior research
a positive relation in reference to the impression management motives and CWB was
expected. An expected finding was that the impression management motive would predict
45
CWB, and diminish proactivity in employees, thus, hypothesis 5 and 6
were supported. It
could be also grounded on the questions covering impression management, since the
respondents had to rate statements as “I want to avoid ‘looking bad’ in front of others” or “I
want to avoid a reprimand from my supervisor”. Indeed, if the statements were rated high, a
less proactive approach was the outcome, and vice versa, it related to a higher motivation in
CWBs. This may have a logical explanation, as a person who wants to avoid looking bad in
front of the supervisor does not really reflect proactive characteristics per se. Proactivity
comprises active and organization-focused attitudes, which can be seen in the statements
presented in the questionnaire, e.g. “I do more than I need to” or “In order to do my job well, I
often use improved procedures” (measured for proactivity). A person may not choose a
proactive way in order to avoid a bad image in front of others, but rather hide mistakes and
negative outcomes (e.g. CWB).
Impression management seems to be an essential attitude resulting in employee’s work
behaviors. Particularly Machs use their manipulative skills to fake their real behaviors, for
instance, they offer help only when this is recogniced and rewarded (Becker & O’Hair, 2007).
This ability could be noticed by transformational leaders or Machs feel a higher risk to behave
so. Does this mean that a transformational leader would evoke proactivity because he knows
how to manage personal motives of employees? This question and extant evidence for
significant relationships between leadership and motives (e.g. Halbesleben, Bolino, Bowler, &
Turnley, 2010) lead to the formulation of hypothesis 7, stating that charismatic leadership
would reduce impression management motives. Accordingly, the data supported the idea
transformational leadership reducing impression management motives in employees (H7).
Hence, more proactivity and less CWB could result from this point of view. High-Machs may
be primarily concerned with the own goals, however, according to Wilson et al. (1996) Machs
are good strategic and calculative thinkers who understand that their goals are not always
achievable through deception and manipulation strategies alone.
46
Baumeister (1989) suggests that people acting by impression management motive
were mostly not fully identified with the task, which reflects in less effort and energy they
bring in to be proactive. Also, De Cremer (2002) provided evidence, that charismatic leaders
are able to transform an individual’s selfish decisions into more collective-oriented and selfsacrificing motives in social dilemmas. Does a charismatic leader promote desirable outcomes
by giving Machs more meaning to their tasks or adjust their personal motives towards more
proactivity? The existent findings in respect to Machs and charismatic leaders gave occasion
to explore potential motivators towards proactivity and demotivators towards CWB,
particularly with regard to an interacting effect of transformational leadership on
Machiavellianism. Thereby it was expected, that transformational leadership will interact with
Machiavellianism and would thus activate a proactive sense in Machs. The results of
hypothesis 8 showed, that high scoring subjects on Machiavellianism were significantly more
associated with proactivity in a high transformational leadership setting, and less in a low
transformational setting. In contrast to an interacting effect of high-charismatic leaders
causing more proactivity in high-Machs, I expected transformational leadership to have a
negative effect on Machiavellianism and CWBs, accordingly, the results supported hypothesis
9. When interpreting the given results displayed by hypothesis 5 and 6, it can be said, that the
motive of impression management leads to more CWBs, and less to proactivity. That means
that if transformational leadership brings down employee’s personal motive of impression
management (supported by hypothesis 7), then it could affect in particular high-Machs, as
these are using more often impression management tactics. The thought is, that transformation
leaders affect Machs’ impression management motive, and as a consequence, CWB will be
reduced and proactivity activated, thus hypothesis 10 was formulated and statistically
supported. The model indicates that in a high-transformational leadership setting
Machiavellians are less associated with impression management, and thus less with CWBs.
Similarly, the model tested also the pro-organizational motive as an outcome variable,
47
however, no statistically significant evidence could be found for a moderating role of different
transformational leadership levels on the relationship between Machiavellianism and proorganizational motives (H11). In other words, high Machiavellians, as well as low
Machiavellians will have similar impacts on pro-organizational motives, no matter whether
they have a high or low transformational leader as a supervisor. The suggested mechanism,
where transformational leadership drives up pro-organizational motives, could, at least in
respect to Machs, statistically not be proven. The result might be grounded in the general
construct of Machiavellianism, which does not consist of pro-organizational views at all, but
of self-interest related views instead.
Several reasons for the interacting role of transformational leadership may exist.
Firstly, consistent with prior research transformational leadership shows a great enhancement
of proactive behavior (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Strauss, Griffin, & Rafferty, 2009; Den
Hartog, De Hoogh, & Keegan, 2007; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Apparently, a
transformational leader has the power to influence and motivate also Machiavellians. I refer
here mainly to the full range leadership theory. According to the full range leadership theory
transformational leaders do have the ability to inspire and motivate employees (Bass &
Avolio, 1990). Through individualized influence, individualized consideration, inspirational
motivation, and intellectual stimulation a charismatic leader are able to create a sense of team
spirit, interest alignment, and meaningfulness in the working place in order to promote
proactivity and diminish the chance of CWBs. Transformational leaders reward employees in
other ways, giving more freedom to act and autonomy, from which Machs could drive their
motivation from, namely from their desire to control. Especially the impression management
motive of Machs seems to be affected by transformational leadership. There, a positive effect
of high-rated transformational leaders could be, that Machs just do not perceive a better
opportunity as behaving like the leader encourages to. Also, Machiavellians are known to be
significantly flexible in handling structured and unstructured tasks, and also transformational
48
leaders are comfortable in challenging and flexible environments. Because both,
Machiavellians and charismatic leaders feel comfortable in such environments, it is easier for
Machs to imitate leader’s behaviors, and easier for charismatic leaders to act as role models.
In general, De Cremer’s (2002) evidence, that a charismatic leader drives pro-selfs to
contribute more to the common goal could be supported. Since transformational leaders help
to satisfy ones needs, or transform ones needs, values, and preferences from self – to
collective interests, they simultaneously diminish the intention of followers to behave
counterproductive, or increase the chance to behave proactive.
Taking the results together, the study does contribute to the leadership and human
psychology research. Besides strengths, this study also has its limitations. These will be
described in the next chapter.
8.2 Limitations and Future Research
Next to its contributive findings on transformational leadership, Machiavellianism,
counterproductive work behaviors, proactivity and personal motives, this paper has also
limitations. The first limitation refers to the method of this study. First of all, the findings
presented here should not be careless generalized and therefore treated with caution. The data
was conducted in a young-professional sample, thus, the low mean age of the respondents
(27) may limit the generalizability of the findings. The ratings provided by young and most of
the cases short experienced employees might not be consistent with ratings of long
experienced employees. Furthermore, it was difficult to get complete pair-wise questionnaires
back. In order to accelerate the data collection, the participants were asked to rate their
colleagues and supervisors instead of only supervisors. Even though the suggested hypotheses
were largely supported, a replication of the above presented findings is essential in order to
meet the generalizability.
49
All hypotheses comprising the variable ‘impression management’ were supported. The
limitation lies in the measurement, as a variable can be described and rated more precisely.
For instance, impression management can also be interpreted from a different perspective. As
Machiavellians are prone to impress, it does not automatically imply created impression
towards the supervisor or coworkers. Impression management could be also used towards
clients or customers, in order to drive up their satisfaction or a positive image of the
organization. Here might rest a crucial factor as impression management could be also a
suitable measure to compete on the market, especially as Machiavellians are supposed to be
loyal to the own team, but being manipulative towards others. The impression management
motive, however, did not really measure a setting in respect to an external competitor or
client. From the perspective of a customer service or client relations department, an
impression management motive towards customers can be as valuable as proactive behavior.
As the data was collected through self-administered questionnaires, the writer did not
have any control over situations, where specific circumstances, under which the
questionnaires were filled in, could have influenced the ratings. Thus, it cannot be checked,
whether situations as stressful work environments, time pressure, or even consultation
between the self- and peer-raters, might have distorted the results. Future research should
focus on diminishing the above mentioned and further potential limitations. Thereby the
approach could deliver more predictive and generalizable results. However, this study made a
further step in discovering the impact of transformational leadership, particularly in respect to
Machiavellianism and their attitude towards proactivity, and counterproductive work
behaviors, respectively. Putting the present research and previous literature on
Machiavellianism and leadership together it can be said, that there is still room for exploring
leadership’s effects on personalities like Machiavellians. A broader understanding of the
interaction between transformational leadership and Machiavellianism surely adds value to
these topics, but as indicated before, these findings should be replicated and further
50
developed. In general, researchers should put their focus on conceptual models, which do
have a closer link to the practice and do simplify the derivation to managerial implications,
thus, a contributive approach would be to study further interaction effects and mediating
models, which comprise Machiavellianism in employees and managers, as well as leadership
styles and their influencing characters.
Besides the pejorative connotations, Machiavellianism brings about strong personality
characteristics, which are essential, especially for interpersonal relations. The Machiavellian
mean 4.15 (on a Likert scale from 1 to 7) shows a broad presence of such personalities.
Consequently, an essential approach would be to look at this term from a neutral perspective
and thereby discovering new findings, negative as well as positives, which are associated with
this term.
9. Conclusion
The present study mainly aimed, besides a replication of previous studies, to explore a
transformation leadership’s effect on Machiavellian personalities in respect to work behavior
and provided interesting results. The results support the widely negative associations, which
are existent in the literature about the term ‘Machiavellianism’, and the positive associations
about transformational leadership. The research revealed that transformational leadership does
enforce proactivity and less engagement in CWBs by Machs. Furthermore, charismatic
leadership diminishes the motivation to use impression management strategies, whereas
impression management is positively associated with CWBs and negatively with proactivity.
Especially Machs are impression management minded. This implies that the positive effect of
charismatic leaders on work behaviors could be grounded on the influence they have on the
impression management motives of Machs.
Previous research on the other hand suggested impression management and proactivity
being similar in their settings. However, according to the presented results, high-Machs seem
51
to truly engage more in proactive behavior under transformational leaders, by not trying to
just look better in front of others. Charismatic leaders, as well as Machs know how to
influence people, know how to maintain interpersonal relationships and how to pursue
personal goals. A goal of a transformational leader is to manage his employess in a way, that
makes them follow his vision, similarly, Machiavellians report higher needs and are known to
be successful in achieving their goals. Manipulative characteristics can be found in both
constructs, and what is more, both feel comfortable in fast changing and high flexible
environments. As Machiavellianism shares commonly negative associations, this study
provides interesting implications in how to manage such personalities for the interest of all.
The presented results show a good start in exploring the relationships and
characteristics of employees and managers in organizations, but future research should aim to
confirm these effects. Organizations are well advised to implement a transformational
leadership setting, when aiming to drive up proactive behavior in Machiavellians, and
diminishing CWBs. For example, teams can be formed in a desired way when a company
starts to pay more attention in designing specific recruitment and selection methods in order
to fish out synergetic personnel.
52
Works Cited
Business Today - Creative Entrepreneurs Can Survive The Crisis. (2009, May 13). Retrieved August
26, 2011, from Business Today: www.businesstoday.lk/article.php?article=509
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B. J.
Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road
ahead (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam: JAI.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity During Organizational Entry: Ther Role of Desire for
Control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199-214.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformationaland
transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological
safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavio, 24,
45–68.
Barbuto, J. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: a test
of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26-40.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Current developments in transformational leadership. Psychologist-Manager
Journal, 3(1), 5-22.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1990). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for
individual, team, and organizational development. (R. Woodman, & W. Pasmore, Eds.)
Research in organizational change and development, 4, 231-272.
Bass, B., Avolio, B., Jung, D., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of Leader-Member Exchange: A Longitudinal Test.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.
Baumeister, R. F. (1989). Motives and costs of self‐presentation in organizations. In R. Giacalone, &
P. Rosenfeld (Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Becker, J. A., & O’Hair, D. H. (2007). Machiavellians’ Motives in Organizational Citizenship
Behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 246-267.
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of
proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology(83), 475–498.
53
Bjorkelo, B., Einarsen, S., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2010). Predicting proactive behaviour at work:
Exploring the role of personality as an antecedent of whistleblowing behaviour. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2(83), 371–394.
Bogart, K., Geis, F., Levy, M., & Zimbardo, P. (1970). No dissonance for Machiavellianism. (R.
Christie, & F. Geis, Eds.) Studies in Machiavellianism, 236-259.
Boland, M. J., & Ross, W. H. (2010). Emotional Intelligence and Dispute Mediation in Escalating and
De-Escalating Situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(12), 3059-3105.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and Impression Management: Good Soldiers or Good Actors? The
Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82-98.
Bolino, M., Turnley, W., & Niehoff, B. (2004). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The
relationship between initiative and role overload, job stress, and work‐family conflict. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90, 740‐748.
Bolino, M., Valcea, S., & Harvey, J. (2010). Employee, manage thyself: The potentially negative
implications of expecting employees to behave proactively. The British Psychological Society,
83, 325-345.
Borman, W. C.; Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Introduction: Organizational citizenship behavior and
contextual performance. Special issue of Human Performance. Human Performance, 10, 6769.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. NY: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Cho, J., Park, I., & Michel, J. W. (2011). How Does Leadership Affect Information Systems Success?
The Role of Transformational Leadership. Information and Management, In press, Accepted
Manuscript.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1968). Some consequences of taking Machiavelli seriously. In E. F. Borgatta,
& W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 959-973).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in
organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.
Crant, J. M. (1995). Proactive behavior at work. Journal of Management(26), 435–462.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work
attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 160–169.
Dahling, J., Whitaker, B., & Levy, P. (2009). The Development and Validation of a New
Machiavellianism Scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219-257.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior
and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255.
54
Dawkins, R., & Krebs, J. R. (1978). Animal signals: Information or manipulation. In J. R. Krebs, & N.
B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioral ecolecology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 282-309). Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
De Cremer, D. (2002). Charismatic Leadership and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Matter of
Transforming Motives? Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 32(5), 997-1016.
De Stobbeleir, K., Ashford, S. J., & Sully de Luque, M. F. (2010). Proactivity with image in mind:
How employee and manager characteristics affect evaluations of proactive behaviours.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2(83), 347–369.
De Vries, M. (1998). Charisma in Action: The Transformational Abilities of Virgin's Richard Branson
and ABB's Percy Barnevic. Organizational Dynamics, 7-21.
Deluga, R. J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership
and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 339-363.
Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H., & Keegan, A. E. (2007). The interactive effects of
belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1131–1139.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S., Kim, J., & et al. (1999). Culture
specific and cross-culturally generalizable implizit leadership theories: Are attributes of
charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219256.
Denoyellle, P. (1994). Virgin Atlantic Airways - Ten years after. Insead - Business School for the
World, 1-36.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really
Open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.
Dionne, S., Yammarino, F., & Atwater, L. &. (2002). Neutralizing substitutes for leadership theory:
Leadership effects and common-source bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 454-464.
Drory, A., & Gluskinos, U. M. (1980). Machiavellianism and leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65, 81-86.
Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and
organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1379-1391.
Fehr, B., Samson, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years
later. (C. Spielberger, & B. J, Eds.) Advances in personality assessment, 9, 77-116.
Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence and
the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 58, 101-135.
Fodchuk, K. M. (2007). Work Environments That Negate Counterproductive Behaviors and Foster
Organizational Citizenship: Research-Based Recommendations for Managers.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 915-931.
55
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal Initiative: An Active Performance Concept for Work in the 21st
Century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative:
Operationalization, reliability, and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139–161.
Giesburg, J. (2001). The role of communication in preventing workplace sabotage. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 31, 2439-2461.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78-90.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good Soldiers and Good Actors: Prosocial and Impression
Management Motives as Interactive Predictors of Affiliative Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900–912.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior:
Supervisorreactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62,
31-55.
Griffin, R. W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2004). An introduction to the dark side. In R. W. Griffin, &
A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 1-19). San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Halbesleben, J. R., Bolino, M. C., Bowler, W. M., & Turnley, W. H. (2010). Organizational Concern,
Prosocial Values, or Impression Management? How Supervisors Attribute Motives to
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1450–
1489.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1967). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley & Sons.
Hong, P., Doll, W., Nahm, A. Y., & Li, X. (2004). Knowledge sharing in integrated product
development. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(2), 102-112.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Lessons, Legacy, and a Reformulated Theory.
Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352.
House, R., & Howell, J. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3(2),
81-108.
Hunt, S. D., & Chonko, L. B. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism. Journal of Marketing., 48, 3042.
Jones, R. E., & White, C. S. (1985). Relationships among personality, conflicts resolution styles, and
tasks effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies, 10(2), 152-167.
Jose, P. (2008). ModGraph-I: A programme to compute cell means for the graphical display of
moderational analyses: The internet version, Version 2.0. (Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand) Retrieved January 2, 2012, from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/psyc/paul-josefiles/modgraph/modgraph.php
56
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the
narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and
task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762-776.
Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of
their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.
Jyoti, T., Masters, C., & Thompson, M. (2008). Branson's Flight Plan. Time International (Soutch
Pacific Edition)(17), 42-45.
Kessler, S., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., Nelson, C. E., & Penney, L. M. (2010).
Re-Examining Machiavelli: A Three-Dimensional Model of Machiavellianism in the
Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(8), 1868-1896.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74.
Koopman, P. (1991). Charismatic Leadership, motivation and performance. Gedrag en Oranisatie, 5,
357-369.
Lagarde, C. (2011, August 27). IMF - - International Monetary Fund Home Page. Retrieved August
28, 2011, from "Global Risks Are Rising, But There Is a Path to Recovery": Remarks at
Jackson Hole: http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2011/082711.htm
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and twocomponent model. Psychological Bulletin,, 107, 34-47.
Liu, C. C. (2008). The Relationship between Machiavellianism and Knowledge Sharing Willingness.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 233-240.
Machiavelli, N. (1966). The Prince. New York: Bantam (Original work published 1513).
Marrs, M. E. (2000). Antecedents and outcomes of verbal aggression in the workplace. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 61, 681.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal(42), 403–419.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive
work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591-622.
Orbell, J., Morikawa, T., Hartwig, J., Hanley, J., & Allen, N. (2004). “Machiavellian” Intelligence as a
Basis for the Evolution of Cooperative Dispositions. American Political Science Review,
98(1), 1-17.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for
Windows. Madenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
57
Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and social
psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human
Performance, 10, 111-132.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior. Do bigger
egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 126-134.
Rank, J., Carsten, J. M., Unger, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Proactive Customer Service
Performance: Relationships with Individual, Task, and Leadership Variables. Human
Performance, 20, 363-390.
Reimers, J. M., & Barbuto, J. E. (2002). A Framework Exploring the Effects of the Machiavellian
Disposition on the Relationship Between Motivation and Influence Tactics. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(29), 29-41.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The Causes of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A
Motivational Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Sakalaki, M., Richardson, C., & Thepaut, Y. (2007). Machiavellianism and economic opportunism.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1181-1190.
Seibert, S., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, M. J. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model
linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology,, 54, 845-874.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The Motivational Effects of Charismatic
Leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4(4), 577-591.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In
P. E. Spector, & S. Fox (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and
targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team
andorganization: The role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-efficacy. British
Journal of Management, 20, 279–291.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 42,
100-108.
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A
comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 275–300.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011-1017.
Tosi, H., & Mero, N. P. (2003). The Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior: What Managers Need
to Know. Wiley-Blackwell.
Townsend, J. P. (2000). Employee Retaliation: The neglected consequence of poor leader-member
exchange relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 457-463.
58
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct
and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddled waters). Research in Organizational
Behavior, 17, 215–285.
Vleeming, R. G. (1979). Machiavellianism: A preliminary review. Psychological Reports,, 44, 295310.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship
and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431-1440.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson
& Talcott Parsons. NY: The Free Press.
Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2010). Proactively performing teams: The role of work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 301-324.
Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A Synthesis of the Evolutionary and
Psychological Literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 285-299.
Wolfson, S. L. (1981). Effects of Machiavellianism and communication on helping behaviour during
an emergency. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20(3), 189-195.
Yukl, G. (1999). An Evaluation of Conceptual Weaknesses in Transformational and Charismatic
Leadership Theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
;
59
Appendix
Hypothesis 9
Model Summary
Model
R
1
R Square
,594
a
Adjusted R
Std. Error of the
Square
Estimate
,352
,333
,62031
a. Predictors: (Constant), Transformational Leadership x Machiavellianism,
Machiavellianism, Transformational Leadership
ANOVAa
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Regression
20,925
3
6,975
Residual
38,479
100
,385
Total
59,404
103
Sig.
,000b
18,126
a. Dependent Variable: Counterproductive Work Behaviors
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transformational Leadership x Machiavellianism, Machiavellianism,
Transformational Leadership
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
t
Sig.
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
Machiavellianism
Transformational
1
Leader
Std. Error
1,954
,062
,227
,062
-,445
-,214
Beta
31,645
,000
,299
3,652
,000
,066
-,561
-6,699
,000
,064
-,275
-3,333
,001
Transformational
Leader x
Machiavellianism
a. Dependent Variable: Counterproductive Work Behaviors
60
Hypothesis 9
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
CWB
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
low
med
high
Machiavellianism
Transformational Leadership
high
low
Figure 2 The relationship between Machiavellianism and CWB at high and low levels of transformational
leadership.
Figure 2 provides an illustration of the Machiavellianism x transformational Leadership
interaction with CWB as the outcome variable. As can be seen, high-Machiavellians have a
stronger negative relationship with CWB in low-transformational leadership settings, but in a
high-transformational leadership setting, high-Machiavellians engage less in CWB.
61
Hypothesis 10
Model Summary
Model
R
,423a
1
a.
R Square
Adjusted R
Std. Error of the
Square
Estimate
,179
,154
1,36629
Predictors: (Constant), Transformational Leadership x Machiavellianism,
Machiavellianism, Transformational Leadership
ANOVA
Model
Sum of Squares
Regression
1
df
Mean Square
F
40,733
3
13,578
Residual
186,675
100
1,867
Total
227,408
103
Sig.
,000b
7,273
a. Dependent Variable: Impression Management
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transformational Leadership x Machiavellianism, Machiavellianism,
Transformational Leadership
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
t
Sig.
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
Machiavellianism
Transformational
1
Leader
Std. Error
4,360
,136
,072
,137
-,483
-,558
Beta
32,049
,000
,049
,529
,598
,146
-,311
-3,302
,001
,142
-,366
-3,941
,000
Transformational
Leader x
Machiavellianism
a. Dependent Variable: Impression Management
62
Hypothesis 10
6
Impression Management
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
low
med
high
Machiavellianism
Transformational Leadership
high
low
Figure 4 The relationship between Machiavellianism and impression management motive at high and low levels
of transformational leadership.
Figure 4 provides an illustration of the Machiavellianism x transformational Leadership
interaction with impression management motive as the outcome variable. As can be seen,
high-Machiavellians have a stronger negative relationship with impression management
motive in high-transformational leadership settings, but in a low-transformational leadership
setting, high-Machiavellians engage more in impression management. This result supports the
proposed hypothesis 10.
63
Hypothesis 11
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
,478a
1
Adjusted R
Std. Error of the
Square
Estimate
,229
,206
,79988
a. Predictors: (Constant), Transformational Leadership x Machiavellianism,
Machiavellianism, Transformational Leadership
ANOVAa
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Regression
18,996
3
6,332
Residual
63,980
100
,640
Total
82,976
103
Sig.
,000b
9,897
a. Dependent Variable: Pro-organizational Motives
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transformational Leadership x Machiavellianism, Machiavellianism,
Transformational Leadership
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
t
Sig.
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
4,883
,080
Machiavellianism
-,050
,080
,462
,156
Transformational
1
Std. Error
Leader
Beta
61,313
,000
-,056
-,621
,536
,086
,492
5,385
,000
,083
,170
1,886
,062
Transformational
Leader x
Machiavellianism
a. Dependent Variable: Pro-organizational Motives
64
Hypothesis 11
Pro-Organizational Motive
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
low
med
high
Machiavellianism
Transformational Leadership
high
low
Figure 5 The relationship between Machiavellianism and pro-organizational motive at high and low levels of
transformational leadership.
Figure 5 provides an illustration of the Machiavellianism x transformational Leadership
interaction with pro-organizational motive as the outcome variable. This interaction model is
according to the results not significant (p=0.06), thus, the proposed hypothesis 11 is not
supported.
65