Constraints for Some, Opportunities for Others? Interactive and Indirect Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Constraints on Task Performance Ratings
- 747 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to examine how the indirect relationship between Machiavellianism and task performance ratings is qualified by organizational constraints (e.g., inadequate resources). Contrary to past research, we suggest that constraints can actually facilitate performance ratings among highly Machiavellian employees because they seek to attain high ratings through self-interested behaviors and social influence processes rather than legitimate task performance. Thus, constraints that inhibit legitimate performers should actually create more opportunities for highly Machiavellian employees.
Data were collected from 110 subordinate–supervisor dyads that were recruited from Psychology courses at a small liberal arts college.
The results elaborate on past research focused on organizational constraints to reveal that the indirect relationship between Machiavellianism and task performance is positive and significant under conditions of high organizational constraints. This relationship is not significant and trends in a negative direction when constraints are low.
This study highlights the importance of considering how resource constraints impact different types of performers in organizations. When resources are abundant, legitimate performance is possible and Machiavellians are hampered in their ability to rely on careerist strategies to succeed. In contrast, high constraints create situations that enable Machiavellian behaviors to pay off.
This study’s originality lies in its counterintuitive finding that organizational constraints might actually be beneficial for some employees who adopt Machiavellian, careerist strategies. This is the first study to demonstrate that constraints do not have consistent, negative effects on task performance and to elaborate on how constraints impact the performance of Machiavellian employees.
KeywordsMachiavellianism Careerism Careerist orientation Organizational constraints Situational constraints Task performance Social influence
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Bratton, V. K., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004). Extreme careerism: The dark side of impression management. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 291–308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Campbell, J., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E., & Weick, K. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 309–336). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Dahling, J. J., Kuyumcu, D., & Librizzi, E. H. (2012b). Machiavellianism, unethical behavior, and well-being in organizational life. In R. A. Giacalone & M. D. Promislo (Eds.), Handbook of unethical work behavior: Implications for individual well-being (pp. 183–194). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Google Scholar
- Feldman, D. C. (1988). Managing careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
- Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93–108). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Levy, D. A., Collins, B. E., & Nail, P. R. (1998). A new model of interpersonal influence characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 715–733.Google Scholar
- Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5, 391–397.Google Scholar
- Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Eulberg, J. R. (1985). Situational constraints: Sources, consequences and future considerations. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 79–113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Whitaker, B. G., & Dahling, J. J. (in press). The influence of autonomy and supervisor political skill on the use and consequences of peer intimidation. Human Performance.Google Scholar
- Wu, J., & Lebreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnel Psychology, 64, 593–626.Google Scholar