Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Following Miller et al. (2015), who suggested that Dahling et al.’s (2009) measure of Machiavellianism results in multivariate non-normal data, we tested for normality of our item-level data. Results suggested the data were non-normal. Thus, we used maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and Sattora-Bentler scaled Chi-squares (S – Bχ 2) for model comparison purposes (Jöreskog and Sörbom 2006).

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Kalshoven, K. (2015). Leading Machiavellians. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1934–1956. doi:10.1177/0149206313484513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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(2), 219–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fowler, F. J, Jr. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Harrell, W. A., & Hartnagel, T. (1976). Impact of Machiavellianism and the trustfulness of the victim on laboratory theft. Sociometry, 39, 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions—Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51(5), 469–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Chonko, L. B. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism. Journal of Marketing, 48(3), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). Windows LISREL 8.80. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lakes, K. D. (2013). Restricted sample variance reduces generalizability. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 643–650. doi:10.1037/a0030912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McHoskey, J. W. (1999). Machiavellianism, intrinsic versus extrinsic goals, and social interest: A self-determination theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 23(4), 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidaver-Cohen, D. (1998). Moral climate in business firms: A conceptual framework for analysis and change. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(11), 1211–1226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Graduate Programs in Human Resource Development, Villanova University, 800 E. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 119, St. Mary’s Hall, Villanova, PA, 19085, USA

    Christopher M. Castille & Christian N. Thoroughgood

  2. Livonia, MI, USA

    John E. Buckner V

Authors
  1. Christopher M. Castille
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John E. Buckner V
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian N. Thoroughgood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian N. Thoroughgood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castille, C.M., Buckner, J.E. & Thoroughgood, C.N. Prosocial Citizens Without a Moral Compass? Examining the Relationship Between Machiavellianism and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior. J Bus Ethics 149, 919–930 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3079-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3079-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation