Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

To Flatter or To Assert? Gendered Reactions to Machiavellian Leaders

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrating power dependence and gender role theories, we investigate the interactive effects of followers’ gender and leaders’ Machiavellian orientation in predicting followers’ usage of upward influence tactics. Using a sample of 156 matched leader–follower dyads, we found that followers’ gender moderated the relationship between Time 1 leaders’ Machiavellian orientation and followers’ use of upward influence tactics at Time 2 (6 months later). Specifically, the relationship between Time 1 leaders’ Machiavellianism and Time 2 followers’ ingratiation (a soft influence tactic) was significant and positive for women followers and non-significant for men followers, while the relationship between Time 1 leaders’ Machiavellianism and Time 2 followers’ assertiveness (a hard influence tactic) was significant and positive for men followers but non-significant for women followers. These results suggest that gender plays an important role in how followers react to Machiavellian leaders. The social and ethical implications of these findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We conducted supplementary analyses to examine whether leaders’ Machiavellianism interacted with the demographics of followers and leaders (gender and age). No additional two- or three-way interactions emerged. We also conducted regression analyses without any control variables, and results did not change.

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regressions: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newburry Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J. A. H., & O’Hair, D. (2007). Machiavellians’ motives in organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 246–267. doi:10.1080/00909880701434232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardo, A. B. I. (2004). McKinley’s questionable bequest: over 100 years of English in Philippine education. World Englishes, 23, 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigelow, L., Lundmark, L., Parks, J. M., & Wuebker, R. (2014). Skirting the issue: Experimental evidence of gender bias in IPO prospectus evaluations. Journal of Management, 40, 1732–1759. doi:10.1177/0149206312441624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blickle, G. (2000). Influence tactics used by subordinates: An empirical analysis of the Kipnis and Schmidt subscales. Psychological Reports, 86, 143–154. doi:10.2466/pr0.2000.86.1.143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59–78. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972.tb00018.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruins, J. (1999). Social power and influence tactics: A theoretical introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 7–14. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttner, E. H., & McEnally, M. (1996). The interactive effect of influence tactics, applicant gender, and type of job on hiring recommendations. Sex Roles, 34, 581–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, B. J., & Allen, J. B. (1999). Relationships of employment status, gender role, insult, and gender with use of influence tactics. Sex Roles, 41, 581–591. doi:10.1007/BF01545034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, 219–257. doi:10.1177/0149206308318618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work engagement and Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 35–47. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1972). Exchange theory. Part 1: A psychological basis for social exchange. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress (Vol. 2, pp. 38–57). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 17–42. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199701).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Scott, K. L., & Tang, R. L. (2015). Roots run deep: Investigating mediating mechanisms between history of family aggression and abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 883–897. doi:10.1037/a0036463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotsis, G. N., & Kortezi, Z. (2010). Ethical considerations in organizational politics: Expanding the perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 497–517. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0241-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grams, W. C., & Rogers, R. W. (1990). Power and personality: Effects of Machiavellianism, need for approval, and motivation on use of influence tactics. The Journal of General Psychology, 117, 71–82. doi:10.1080/00221309.1990.9917774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Gender differences in impression management in organizations: A qualitative review. Sex Roles, 56, 483–494. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9187-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 279–309. doi:10.1353/mpq.2003.0013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. V, pp. 269–298). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., Block, C., Martell, R., & Simon, M. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935–942. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R., & Shriesheim, C. A. (1990). Relationships between subordinate perceptions of supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human Relations, 43, 22–237. doi:10.1177/001872679004300302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. E., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1996). An experimental examination of the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 511–523. doi:10.1007/BF00381927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagencsyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 512–519. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. W. (1988). Upward influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 524–528. doi:10.2307/2392642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619–627. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 140–151. doi:10.1037/a0018093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowday, R. T. (1979). Leader characteristics, self-confidence, and methods of upward influence in organization’s decision situations. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 709–725. doi:10.2307/255810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–579. doi:10.1037/a0025679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 321–334. doi:10.1023/A:1006226129868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhaus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. doi:10.1177/014920638601200408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28, 177–193. doi:10.1177/014920630202800203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51–88. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The dark triad and interpersonal perception: Similarities and differences in the social consequences of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 487–496. doi:10.1177/1948550611427608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729. doi:10.1037/a0021593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricks, J., & Fraedrich, J. (1999). The paradox of Machiavellianism: Machiavellianism may make for productive sales but poor management reviews. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 197–205. doi:10.1023/A:1005956311600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62, 218–235. doi:10.2307/2657301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637–655. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibunruang, H., Capezio, A., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2014). Getting ahead through flattery: Examining the moderating roles of organization-based self-esteem and political skill in the ingratiation–promotability relationship. Journal of Career Assessment, 22, 610–626. doi:10.1177/014920638901500405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V., Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2002). Gender and impression management: Playing the promotion game. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 77–89. doi:10.1023/A:1014782118902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Burke, M. J., Christian, M. S., Smith, C. A., Hall, A., & Simms, S. (2013). Gendered influence: A gender role perspective on the use and effectiveness of influence tactics. Journal of Management, 39, 1156–1183. doi:10.1177/0149206313478183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sussman, L., Adams, A. J., Kuzmits, F. E., & Raho, L. E. (2002). Organizational politics: Tactics, channels, and hierarchical roles. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 313–329. doi:10.1023/A:1020807700478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thacker, R. A., & Wayne, S. J. (1995). An examination of the relationship between upward influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Management, 21, 739–756. doi:10.1177/014920639502100408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2003). The impact of self-esteem, Machiavellianism, and social capital on attorneys’ traditional gender outlook. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 323–335. doi:10.1023/A:1023008828115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor–subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487–499. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R. L. (2014). Psychological contacts as a mediator between Machiavellianism and employee citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of Management, 4, 1098–1122. doi:10.1177/0149206311415420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Alessandra Capezio, Simon L. D. Restubog & Vinh N. Lu

  2. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Lu Wang

  3. University of Vermont, Burlington, USA

    Patrick R. J. M. Garcia

  4. Work Effectiveness & Leadership Lab (WELL), Canberra, Australia

    Alessandra Capezio, Lu Wang, Simon L. D. Restubog, Patrick R. J. M. Garcia & Vinh N. Lu

Authors
  1. Alessandra Capezio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon L. D. Restubog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick R. J. M. Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vinh N. Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Alessandra Capezio or Lu Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Capezio, A., Wang, L., Restubog, S.L.D. et al. To Flatter or To Assert? Gendered Reactions to Machiavellian Leaders. J Bus Ethics 141, 1–11 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2723-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2723-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation