Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 301–310 | Cite as

Constraints for Some, Opportunities for Others? Interactive and Indirect Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Constraints on Task Performance Ratings

  • Daniel Kuyumcu
  • Jason J. Dahling
Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data were collected from 110 subordinate–supervisor dyads that were recruited from Psychology courses at a small liberal arts college.

Findings

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.

Implications

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.

Originality/Value

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.

Keywords

Machiavellianism Careerism Careerist orientation Organizational constraints Situational constraints Task performance Social influence 

References

  1. Adkins, C. L., & Naumann, S. E. (2001). Situational constraints on the achievement-performance relationship: A service-sector study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2004). Countering the trend toward careerist orientation in the age of downsizing: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Business Research, 57, 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, J. A., & O’Hair, D. H. (2007). Machiavellians’ motives in organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Communications Research, 35, 246–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Campbell, J., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E., & Weick, K. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Chang, C.-H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 779–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chay, Y. W., & Aryee, S. (1999). Potential moderating influence of career growth opportunities on careerist orientation and work attitudes: Evidence of the protean career era in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 613–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, F. (2006). Career self-interest and concern for others—The effects of co-worker attitudes on fraudulent behavior. Accounting & the Public Interest, 6, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corzine, J. B., Buntzman, G. F., & Busch, E. T. (1999). Machiavellianism in U.S. bankers. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7, 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A., I. I. I. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crawshaw, J., & Brodbeck, F. (2011). Justice and trust as antecedents of careerist orientation. Personnel Review, 40, 106–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., & O’Malley, A. L. (2012a). Correlates and consequences of feedback orientation in organizations. Journal of Management, 38, 531–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Deshpande, S. P. (1996). Ethical climate and the link between success and ethical behavior: An empirical investigation of a non-profit organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1988). A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioral research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feldman, D. C. (1988). Managing careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  24. Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1991). From the invisible hand to the glad hand: Understanding a careerist orientation to work. Human Resource Management, 30, 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gable, M., & Dangello, F. (1994). Job involvement, Machiavellianism, and job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gable, M., Hollon, C., & Dangello, F. (1992). Managerial structuring of work as a moderator of the Machiavellianism and job performance relationship. Journal of Psychology, 126, 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 278–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Klein, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study of the influence of situational constraints, leader–member exchange, and goal commitment on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Liu, C. C. (2008). The relationship between Machiavellianism and knowledge sharing willingness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murphy, K. R. (2008). Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Connor, E. J., Peters, L. H., Rudolf, C. J., & Pooyan, A. (1982). Situational constraints and employee affective reactions: A partial field replication. Group and Organization Studies, 7, 418–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Connor, E. J., Peters, L. H., Pooyan, A., Weekley, J., Frank, B., & Erenkrantz, B. (1984). Situational constraint effects on performance, affective reactions, and turnover: A field replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Rudolf, C. J. (1980). The behavioral and affective consequences of performance-relevant situational variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peters, L. H., Chassie, M. B., Lindholm, H. R., O’Connor, E. J., & Kline, C. R. (1982). The joint influences of situational constraints and goal setting on performance and affective outcomes. Journal of Management, 8, 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sakalaki, M., Richardson, C., & Thepaut, Y. (2007). Machiavellianism and economic opportunism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1181–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shultz, C. J. (1993). Situational and dispositional predictors of performance: A test of the hypothesized Machiavellianism × structure interaction among sales persons. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 478–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2002). Performance concepts and performance theory. In S. Sonnentag (Ed.), Psychological management of individual performance (pp. 3–25). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sparks, J. R. (1994). Machiavellianism and personal success in marketing: The moderating role of latitude for improvisation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Spector, P. E., Chen, P. Y., & O’Connell, B. J. (2000). A longitudinal study of relations between job stressors and job strains while controlling for prior negative affectivity and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 211–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tett, R. P., & Gutterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, D.C.: APA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the long-wall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Villanova, P. (1996). Predictive validity of situational constraints in general versus specific performance domains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 532–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Villanova, P., & Roman, M. A. (1993). A meta-analytic review of situational constraints and work-related outcomes: Alternative approaches to conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 285–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Zagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R. L. (2013). Psychological contracts as a mediator between Machiavellianism and employee citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of Management,. doi: 10.1177/0149206311415420.Google Scholar
  61. Zettler, I., Niklas, F., & Hilbig, B. E. (2011). Dissecting work commitment: The role of Machiavellianism. Career Development International, 16, 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe College of New JerseyEwingUSA

Personalised recommendations