Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 149, Issue 4, pp 919–930 | Cite as

Prosocial Citizens Without a Moral Compass? Examining the Relationship Between Machiavellianism and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior

  • Christopher M. Castille
  • John E. BucknerV
  • Christian N. ThoroughgoodEmail author
Article

Abstract

Research in the organizational sciences has tended to portray prosocial behavior as an unqualified positive outcome that should be encouraged in organizations. However, only recently, have researchers begun to acknowledge prosocial behaviors that help maintain an organization’s positive image in ways that violate ethical norms (e.g., misrepresenting or exaggerating the truth, concealing damaging information about the firm). Recent scandals, including Volkswagen’s emissions scandal and Penn State’s child sex abuse scandal, point to the need for research on the individual factors and situational conditions that shape the emergence of these unethical pro-organizational behaviors (UPB). Drawing on trait activation theory, we argue that the “dark” trait of Machiavellianism should make individuals more willing to engage in UPB. Further, we argue that this willingness will be augmented when Machiavellians hold bottom-line-mentality climate perceptions (BLMCPs), or the perception that ethical standards matter less than organizational performance. Using data from 170 U.S. employees, results suggested that Machiavellians are more willing to engage in UPB, but that BLMCPs may not affect their motivation to engage in UPB. We discuss the study’s theoretical and practical implications, as well as avenues for research.

Keywords

Machiavellianism Unethical pro-organizational behavior Counterproductive work behavior 

References

  1. Aguinis, H., & Lawal, S. O. (2012). Conducting field experiments using eLancing’s natural environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(4), 493–505. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behrend, T., Sharek, D., Meade, A., & Wiebe, E. (2011). The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 800–813. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Kalshoven, K. (2015). Leading Machiavellians. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1934–1956. doi: 10.1177/0149206313484513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 29(2), 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Boyce, A. S., O’Connell, M. S., Kung, M.-C., & Delgado, K. M. (2013). Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology,. doi: 10.1037/a0034688.Google Scholar
  8. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Day, D. V., & Bedeian, A. G. (1991). Predicting job performance across organizations: The interaction of work orientation and psychological climate. Journal of Management, 17, 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Effelsberg, D., Solga, M., & Gurt, J. (2014). Transformational leadership and follower’s unethical behavior for the benefit of the company: A two-study investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 81–93. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1644-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fehr, B., Samson, D., & Paulhus, D. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Fowler, F. J, Jr. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Goldberg, L., & Kilkowski, J. M. (1985). The prediction of semantic consistency in self-descriptions: Characteristics of persons and of terms that affect the consistency of responses to synonym and antonym pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham, K., Ziegert, J., & Capitano, J. (2015). The effect of leadership style, framing, and promotion regulatory focus on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 423–436. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1952-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graves, L. M., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 343–359. doi: 10.1037/a0025217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guenole, N. (2014). Maladaptive personality at work: Exploring the darkness. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(1), 85–97. doi: 10.1111/iops.12114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gunnthorsdottir, A., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (2002). Using the Machiavellianism instrument to predict trustworthiness in a bargaining game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(1), 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustafson, S. B. (2000). Personality and organizational destructiveness: Fact, fiction, and fable. In L. R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns, L. Nilsson, & N. Nystedt (Eds.), Developmental science and the holistic approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Hattrup, K., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Learning about individual differences by taking situations seriously. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 507–547). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Harrell, W. A., & Hartnagel, T. (1976). Impact of Machiavellianism and the trustfulness of the victim on laboratory theft. Sociometry, 39, 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions—Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51(5), 469–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunt, S. D., & Chonko, L. B. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism. Journal of Marketing, 48(3), 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ilies, R., Arvey, R. D., & Bouchard, T. J. (2006). Darwinism, behavioral genetics, and organizational behavior: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(2), 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 449–453. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). Windows LISREL 8.80. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  29. Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). The bright and dark sides of personality: Implications for personnel selection in individual and team contexts. In J. Langan-Fox, C. Cooper, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 332–355). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855–875. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Steel, P. D. G., & Rubenstein, A. (2010). The other side of method bias: The perils of distinct source research designs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(2), 294–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31. doi: 10.1037/a0017103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuyumcu, D., & Grandey, A. (2013). Corrupt characters within cooperative climates: Can psychological safety buffer against sabotage behaviors by Machiavellian employees? (M.S.), Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  34. Lakes, K. D. (2013). Restricted sample variance reduces generalizability. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 643–650. doi: 10.1037/a0030912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 142–164. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacLane, C. N., & Walmsley, P. T. (2010). Reducing counterproductive work behavior through employee selection. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 62–72. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matherne, C. F, I. I. I., & Litchfield, S. R. (2012). Investigating the relationship between affective commitment and unethical pro-organizational behaviors: The role of moral identity. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics, 9(5), 35–46.Google Scholar
  40. McHoskey, J. W. (1999). Machiavellianism, intrinsic versus extrinsic goals, and social interest: A self-determination theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 23(4), 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miao, Q., Newman, A., Yu, J., & Xu, L. (2013). The relationship between ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior: Linear or curvilinear effects? Journal of Business Ethics, 116(3), 641–653. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1504-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller, B. K., Smart, D. L., & Rechner, P. L. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Machiavellian personality scale. In D. L. Smart & P. L. Rechner (Eds.), Personality and individual differences (Vol. 82, pp. 120–124). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Motowildo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
  47. O’Boyle, E. H, Jr, 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(3), 557–579. doi: 10.1037/a0025679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (2013). Counterproductive work behaviors: Concepts, measurement, and nomological network. In K. F. Geisinger, B. A. Bracken, J. F. Carlson, J.-I. C. Hansen, N. R. Kuncel, S. P. Reise, & M. C. Rodriguez (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology: Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 643–659). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  49. Ong, A. D., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1691–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.Google Scholar
  51. Ostroff, C. (1993). The effects of climate and personal influences on individual behavior and attitudes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 56–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paal, T., & Bereczkei, T. (2007). Adult theory of mind, cooperation, Machiavellianism: The effect of mindreading on social relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 541–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Resick, C. J., Weingarden, S. M., Whitman, D. S., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sakalaki, M., Richardson, C., & Thépaut, Y. (2007). Machiavellianism and economic opportunism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1181–1190. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00208.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spector, P. E., & Rodopman, O. B. (2010). Methodological issues in studying insidious workplace behavior. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), insidious workplace behavior (pp. 273–306). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  61. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 397–423. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thompson, G. J., Carder, D. K., Besch, M. C., Thiruvengadam, A., & Kappanna, H. K. (2014). In-use emissions testing of light-duty diesel vehicles in the United States. Retrieved from the International Council on Clean Transportation website http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/WVU_LDDV_in-use_ICCT_Report_Final_may2014.pdf.
  64. Thoroughgood, C. N., & Padilla, A. (2013). Destructive leadership and the Penn State scandal: A toxic triangle perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(2), 144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W. (2012). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 897–917. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621–640. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: the moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769–780. doi: 10.1037/a0019214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vidaver-Cohen, D. (1998). Moral climate in business firms: A conceptual framework for analysis and change. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(11), 1211–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1985). The interpersonal circle: A structural model for the integration of personality research. In R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality: A research annual (Vol. 1, pp. 1–47). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  70. Wille, B., & De Fruyt, F. (2014). Vocations as a source of identity: Reciprocal relations between Big Five personality traits and RIASEC characteristics over 15 years. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 262–281. doi: 10.1037/a0034917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 477–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams, L. J., & O’Boyle, E. (2015). Ideal, nonideal, and no marker variables: The CFA marker technique works when it matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1579–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wu, J., & Lebreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 593–626. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01220.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R. L. (2014). Psychological contracts as a mediator between Machiavellianism and employee citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1098–1122. doi: 10.1177/0149206311415420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher M. Castille
    • 1
  • John E. BucknerV
    • 2
  • Christian N. Thoroughgood
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Graduate Programs in Human Resource DevelopmentVillanova UniversityVillanovaUSA
  2. 2.LivoniaUSA

Personalised recommendations