Abstract
”This paper describes a new and innovative measure that is developed to predict workplace deviance through the measurement of Machiavellianism and Compliant Behavior. Two field studies were conducted to study the validity of the digital work simulation. In Study 1, (N = 113) support was found for the construct validity of the simulation. The constructs as measured with the simulation correlated significantly with self-reported measures of the constructs and were related to personality and self-esteem. Study 2 (N = 285) examined the criterion-related validity of the simulation and showed that through the assessment of Machiavellianism the simulation was able to predict workplace deviance, and incrementally predicted organizational deviance over and above the Machiavellianism Personality Scale. Machiavellianism as measured with the simulation was less susceptible to social desirable answering compared to the Machiavellianism self-report. The paper finishes with study limitations, future research directions, and practical implications.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It was not possible to test for measurement invariance regarding gender differences in Study 1 because of the small sample (i.e., 42 women and 71 men).
To test for measurement invariance, we tested whether the hypothesized model was different for men versus women. A χ 2 difference test was used test whether the factor loadings significantly differed between men and women. The baseline model, with no between group constraints, showed adequate to the data, χ 2 = 515.56, df = 258, p < .01, CFI = .61, TLI = .53, SRMR = .10, RMSEA = .06. The measurement invariant model, with constrained measurement weights, also showed a good fit to the data, χ 2 = 518.99, df = 273, p < .01, CFI = .62, TLI = .58, SRMR = .11, RMSEA = .08. The Δχ 2 = 3.43, with Δdf = 15, was non-significant (p = .99), indicating that the factor loadings are equivalent for men and women.
References
Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organization. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 39–53.
Anderson, J. R., & Johnson, N. B. (2005). On the relationship between work contexts, mandates and compliance behaviours of supervisors. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 381–390.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor of personality: Correlations with Machiavellianism, primary psychopathy, and social adroitness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 359–368.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360.
Beu, D. S., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). This is war: How the politically astute achieve crimes of obedience through the use of moral disengagement. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 551–568.
Beu, D. S., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2003). Ethical decision-making: A multidimensional construct. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12(1), 88–107.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109.
Brief, A. P., Dukerich, J. M., & Doran, L. I. (1991). Resolving ethical dilemmas in management: Experimental investigations of values, accountability, and choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(5), 380–396.
Chen, P. Y., & Popovich, P. M. (2002). Correlation: Parametric and nonparametric measures. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Christian, M. S., Edwards, B. D., & Bradley, J. C. (2010). Situational judgment tests: Constructs assessed and a meta-analysis of their criterion-related validities. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 83–117.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. San Diego: Academic Press.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 599–609.
Connelly, B. S., & Hülsheger, U. R. (2012). A narrower scope or a clearer lens for personality? Examining sources of observers’ advantages over self-reports for predicting performance. Journal of Personality, 80(3), 603–631.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132.
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.
Dey, E. L. (1997). Working with low survey response rates: The efficacy of weighting adjustments. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 215–227.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. G. B. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Fehr, B., Samsom, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your coworker know what you’re doing? Convergence of self- and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(1), 41–60.
Funke, J. (1998). Computer-based testing and training with scenarios from complex problem-solving research: Advantages and disadvantages. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6(2), 90–96.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42.
Grasmick, H. G., & Kobayashi, E. (2002). Workplace deviance in Japan: Applying an extended model of deterrence. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 21–43.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(5), 535–540.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions, and testimony. Chichester: Wiley.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Sigurdsson, J. F. (2003). The relationship of compliance with coping strategies and self-esteem. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19(2), 117–123.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Sigurdsson, J. F. (2004). The relationship of suggestibility and compliance with self-deception and other-deception. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(4), 447–453.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Bragason, O. O., Einarsson, E., & Valdimarsdottir, E. B. (2004). Compliance and personality: The vulnerability of the unstable introvert. European Journal of Personality, 18(5), 435–443.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Brynjólfsdóttir, B., & Hreinsdóttir, H. (2002). The relationship of compliance with anxiety, self-esteem, paranoid thinking and anger. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8(2), 145–153.
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.
Hair, J. F, Jr, Black, W. C., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hambleton, R. K. (2001). The next generation of the ITC test translation and adaptation guidelines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 164–172.
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 639–683.
Interligi, L. (2010). Compliance culture: A conceptual framework. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(2), 235–249.
International Personality Item Pool (2001). A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from http://ipip.ori.org/.
Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331–339.
Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management, 34(5), 978–1000.
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.
Koczwara, A., Patterson, F., Zibarras, L., Kerrin, M., Irish, B., & Wilkinson, M. (2012). Evaluating cognitive ability, knowledge tests and situational judgement tests for postgraduate selection. Medical Education, 46(4), 399–408.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1571–1582.
Levy, T., & Tziner, A. (2011). When destructive deviance in the workplace becomes a liability: A decisional behavioral model. Quality & Quantity, 45, 233–239.
Lievens, F. (2006). International situational judgment tests. In J. A. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests. SIOP Frontier Series (pp. 279–300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lievens, F., & Coetsier, P. (2002). Situational tests in student selection: An examination of predictive validity, adverse impact and construct validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(4), 245–257.
Lievens, F., & De Soete, B. (2012). Simulations. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of personnel assessment and selection (1st ed., pp. 383–410). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Lievens, F., & Patterson, F. (2011). The validity and incremental validity of knowledge tests, low-fidelity simulations, and high-fidelity simulations for predicting job performance in advanced-level high-stakes selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 927–940.
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2006). Video-based versus written situational judgment tests: A comparison in terms of predictive validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1181–1188.
Lievens, F., Van Dam, K., & Anderson, N. (2002). Recent trends and challenges in personnel selection. Personnel Review, 31(5/6), 580–601.
Lönnqvist, J.-E., Paunonen, S., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S., Tuulio-Hendriksson, A., & Lönnqvist, J. (2007). Personality characteristics of research volunteers. European Journal of Personality, 21(8), 1017–1030.
McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L., & Grubb, W. L. (2007). Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 63–91.
McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of practice and constructs assessed. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1/2), 103–113.
McDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2005). Situational judgment test research: Informing the debate on practical intelligence theory. Intelligence, 33(5), 515–525.
Mitchell, R. C. (2004). Combining cases and computer simulations in strategic management courses. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 198–204.
Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 640–647.
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.
Nguyen, N. T., Biderman, M. D., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Effects of response instructions on faking a situational judgment test. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(4), 250–260.
Ones, D. S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on counterproductive behaviors at work. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1/2), 1–4.
Oostrom, J. K., Born, M Ph, Serlie, A., & Van der Molen, H. T. (2010). Webcam testing: Validation of an innovative open-ended multimedia test. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(5), 532–550.
Oostrom, J. K., Born, M Ph, Serlie, A., & Van der Molen, H. T. (2011). A multimedia situational test with a constructed-response format: Its relationship with personality, cognitive ability, job experience, and academic performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(2), 78–88.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.
Petersen, L. E., & Dietz, J. (2000). Social discrimination in a personnel selection context: The effects of an authority’s instruction to discriminate and followers’ authoritarianism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 206–220.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe–Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125.
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.
Ritter, B. A. (2006). Can business ethics be trained? A study of the ethical decision-making process in business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 153–164.
Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1/2), 5–11.
Sakalaki, M., Richardson, C., & Thépaut, Y. (2007). Machiavellianism and economic opportunism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1181–1190.
Schmitt, N., & Mills, A. E. (2001). Traditional tests and job simulations: Minority and majority performance and test validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 451–458.
Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 295–321). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232.
Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Woehr, D. J., & McIntyre, M. D. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: A non-self-report measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 207–215.
Tang, T. L., & Chen, Y. (2008). Intelligence vs. wisdom: The love of money, Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across college major and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 1–26.
Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447–476.
Tsang, H. W. H., Fung, K. M. T., & Corrigan, P. W. (2006). Psychosocial treatment compliance scale for people with psychotic disorders. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40(6/7), 561–569.
Tsui, A. S., & Barry, B. (1986). Research notes: Interpersonal affect and rating errors. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 586–599.
Uziel, L. (2010). Rethinking social desirability scales: From impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 243–262.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 445–452. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.007.
Wahn, J. (1993). Organizational dependence and the likelihood of complying with organizational pressures to behave unethically. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 245–251.
Wahn, J. (2003). Sex differences in competitive and compliant unethical work behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(1), 121–128.
Weber, J. A. (2007). Business ethics training: Insights from learning theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 61–85.
Weekley, J. A., Ployhart, R. E., & Holtz, B. C. (2006). Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application. In J. A. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), SIOP organizational series (pp. 157–182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Wernimont, P. F., & Campbell, J. P. (1968). Signs, samples, and criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(5), 372–376.
Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 285–299.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Alec Serlie, Christof van Nimwegen, and Ranj Serious Game Design for their invaluable contributions to this research project. The intellectual property rights of the digital work simulation tested in this manuscript are of GITP.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Compliant Behavior
You regularly speak to Richard Adams, don’t you? I would prefer to keep this between you and me for now; I’m a bit… euh, embarrassed. It’s a little complicated, I hope you understand? Please don’t mention this issue before I have spoken to my manager.
-
NO! like it or not, I don’t agree.
-
No, this might prevent problems on their side, don’t you think?
-
Yes, it’s not the way we normally do things but I guess you have your reason.
-
YES! I’m with you.
Machiavellianism—Amorality
Romania is known for its slow bureaucratic processes when it comes to permits. There are experienced agencies with contacts which can speed up the process if we pay them. They contact the right people and make sure that everything is quickly arranged. It is THE way to quickly establish ourselves. No doubt that competitors will use this opportunity and we cannot stay behind. But I’m hesitant. What do you think, should we do that?
-
NO! The only way to arrange this is to do this via the official way, even though it is more difficult.
-
No, I’m hesitant, I would not feel comfortable with it.
-
Yes, maybe this is a smart thing to do and it should be considered.
-
YES! That’s advantageous for us.
Machiavellianism—Distrust
Well, I’m not sure. I was in Europe having dinner with one of your clients. We mainly talked about their US sales strategy, but then they mentioned unfair product pricing of one of our competitors. I want to further investigate this, now that I’ve already spoken to them. Do you trust me with that?
-
NO!, what’s in it for you?
-
No, I have my doubts.
-
Yes, that sounds trustworthy.
-
YES! I fully trust you with that!
Machiavellianism—Control
Of course, we do not have a deal without a signature but the tone in the meeting was serious! This client owes me something and I like to achieve my targets. I will quickly make an offer that I will send to them tonight.
-
NO! You need to take more time for that.
-
No, I think this requires more of our time and attention.
-
Yes, that seems like a good plan.
-
YES! Good luck, I’m curious to see what happens.
Machiavellianism—Status
I hear you are doing a good job there in Europe! What will be your next step, running for CEO at Skywarp?
-
NO, that totally leaves me cold.
-
No, I think it’s the result that counts.
-
Yes, that sounds good, don’t you think?
-
YES, that reward would be well deserved.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dubbelt, L., Oostrom, J.K., Hiemstra, A.M.F. et al. Validation of a Digital Work Simulation to Assess Machiavellianism and Compliant Behavior. J Bus Ethics 130, 619–637 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2249-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2249-x