kessler et al. 2010 jasp

5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP

1/29

Re-Examining Machiavelli: A Three-Dimensional Model of

Machiavellianism in the Workplace

SR. K1

Montclair State UniversityAC. B

RHR International Company

PE. S,

WC. B,

CE. N

University of South Florida

L M. P

University of Houston

Machiavellianism has been studied extensively over the past 40 years as a

personality characteristic that shares features with the manipulative leadershiptactics Machiavelli advocated in The Prince. We introduce a new model of

Machiavellianism based in organizational settings that is multidimensional, incor-

porating aspects not previously included in Machiavellianism scales. Our model

consists of 3 factors: maintaining power, harsh management tactics, and manipu-

lative behaviors. The results of 3 studies are summarized, discussing the develop-

ment of these 3 factors and how they relate to individual-difference and

organizational variables.jasp_643 1868..1896

Behavioral researchers have been interested in the concept of Machia-vellianism for the past 40 years. Beginning in the early 1970s, researchers

developed and examined this construct, linking it conceptually to Niccolo

Machiavellis (1513/1998) original work, The Prince, which is characterized

as a guide to the use of deceitful, manipulative leadership practices.

Although many researchers (Christie, 1970b; Gable & Dangello, 1994;

Grams, & Rogers, 1990; McHoskey, 1995) have investigated Machiavel-

lianism, most define a Machiavellian (i.e., high Machs) as a manipulative

individual. While individuals who score high on existing Mach scales

engage in manipulative behaviors, this is only one aspect of Machiavellisapproach.

We propose that the purpose of Machiavellis (1513/1998)The Princewas

to advise leaders (i.e., princes) on the best way to rule subjects. While

Machiavelli advocated using manipulative, harsh, and deceitful behaviors, he

advocated such behavior only as necessary. In other words, when possible, a

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stacey Kessler, Manage-

ment and Information Systems, School of Business, Montclair State University, Partridge Hall322B, 1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043. E-mail: [email protected]

1868

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2010, 40, 8, pp. 18681896.

2010 Copyright the Authors

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


2/29

ruler should manage his or her followers through kinder means. Therefore,

by definition, Machiavellianism is multifaceted and incorporates additionalattitudes and behaviors beyond deceit or manipulativeness.

It should also be noted that behavioral researchers have examined

Machiavellianism devoid of a specific context. We examine Machiavellian-

ism within todays organizational context because it is possible for indi-

viduals to behave and think differently in a work context than in their

personal lives. Organizational researchers have supported this claim by

adapting general individual-difference constructs to the work context. For

example, Spector (1988) answered Phares (1976) call to develop work-

specific measures with his Work Locus of Control Scale. Additionally,within todays organizations, the ability to influence others is an important

skill set at all levels. We believe that Machiavellis advice does not apply

solely to top management, but rather to most employees working within

organizations. Therefore, the purpose of the current paper is to introduce a

new model of Machiavellianism that incorporates additional facets, other

than manipulativeness, as well as to place Machiavellianism within an orga-

nizational context.

What Is Machiavellianism?

In 1513, Machiavelli completed a compelling narrative entitledThe Prince

that offered advice on how to acquire and maintain power over others

effectively during times of uncertainty and change. In his book, Machiavelli

discussed a pragmatic and rational approach to keeping power that is based

entirely on expediency and is devoid of the traditional virtues of trust, honor,

and decency (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996, p. 285). A primary theme

throughout his treatise is the degree to which people can be manipulated;specifically, to identify tactics differentiating those who wield influence from

those who are influenced.

Christie and Geis Model of Machiavellianism

Within the field of social psychology, the concept of Machiavellianism

was first studied by Christie and Geis (1970). These researchers began to

examine whether the principles associated with two of Machiavellis greatestworks (The Prince and The Discourses) were practiced by individuals in

todays society. They defined the Machiavellian personality type as someone

who seeks to manipulate others to achieve his or her own ends (Christie,

1970a).

RE-EXAMINING MACHIAVELLI 1869


3/29

Christie and Geiss (1970) model contains four components describing the

characteristics associated with effective manipulation and control of others.These include (a) a relative lack of affect in interpersonal relationships

(others are viewed entirely as objects or as means to personal ends); (b) a lack

of concern with conventional morality (people who manipulate others have a

utilitarian, rather than a moral view of their interactions with others); (c) a

lack of gross psychopathology (individuals who manipulate must hold a

rational view of others that is not based on distortions of reality; this point

has been challenged by some researchers and is one to which we will return

later); and (d) a low ideological commitment (manipulators are focused on

accomplishing tasks in the present and give little regard to the long-rangeramifications of their actions).

Assessing Machiavellianism

A basic premise of Machiavellianism is that high Machs are guided by

expediency, as opposed to principle, and will engage in a variety of behav-

iors, often manipulative and deceitful, in order to achieve certain end goals.

Using this definition, Christie and Geis (1970) designed scales to measureMachiavellianism. The most notable, the Mach IV, was based on state-

ments from Machiavellis (1513/1998)The Prince and The Discourses (1531/

1984). The Mach IV is a 20-item inventory that is scored on a 7-point

Likert-type scale. The instrument is purported to measure the degree to

which participants agree or disagree with the principles put forth in

Machiavellis writings.

The Mach IV consists of statements such as The best way to handle

people is to tell them what they want to hear, and Anyone who completely

trusts anyone else is asking for trouble. Christie (1970a) reported a split-halfreliability coefficient of .79 for the scale. Internal reliability estimates across

a number of studies have demonstrated levels of reliability ranging from

alphas of .60 to .70 (Mudrack & Mason, 1995).

Although the Mach IV scale provided the first attempt to measure

Machiavellianism, there were several problems with it (Ray, 1983). First, it

demonstrated inconsistent reliability estimates across studies. Second, the

Mach IV scale applies to general, everyday life and does not pertain to

particular contexts (e.g., the workplace). It is possible that individuals might

behave differently across situations (Mischel, 1968; Pervin & John, 1997),especially contexts as different as their work and personal lives. Third,

Christie and Geis (1970) focused only on the negative attributes of Machia-

vellian behavior and, as Deluga (2001) stated, Machiavellianism might not

necessarily be an entirely negative construct.

1870 KESSLER ET AL.


4/29

Organizational Machiavellianism

Several researchers (Hunter, Gerbing, & Boston, 1982; Vleeming, 1979)

have called for changes to the traditional Machiavellianism model. Critics of

the traditional model claim that the construct is too general because it

encompasses a broad spectrum that it is too general not context-specific.

Nelson and Gilbertson (1991) specifically proposed reconsidering the tradi-

tional theory and including concepts relevant to organizational contexts.

Based on these calls for change, we reviewed Machiavellis The Prince

and concluded that Machiavellis philosophy centered on effectively ruling

subjects. Specifically, he discussed strategies for maintaining power and

effectively managing others. Furthermore, while advocating the use of

manipulative and deceitful strategies, he suggested using these strategies only

as necessary. Therefore, while manipulativeness is part of Machiavellis

advice, we believe that Machiavellianism includes additional attitudes and

ideas. Therefore, the purpose of the current paper is to offer a more complete

description of Machiavellianism.

In addition to expanding on Christie and Geiss (1970) definition of

Machiavellianism, we also believe that it is necessary to examine the concept

within a specific context. We chose todays organizational context because it is

a setting where individuals need to influence others.

Based on the expanded view of Machiavellianism and the context-

specific domain, we define organizational Machiavellianism as the belief in

the use of manipulation, as necessary, to achieve ones desired ends in the

context of the work environment. Organizational Machiavellians are indi-

viduals who are comfortable with exploiting others, and do so when it is

beneficial to them. A key theme of the organizational Machiavellian is that

he or she will only use manipulative and deceitful strategies when it is

advantageous to do so. These types of employees are not necessarily heart-

less, nasty, or vindictive, but they can be genuinely accommodating and

respectful, when it is in their best interest to be so. For example, in The

Prince, Machiavelli (1513/1998) suggested that princes ought, at suitable

seasons of the year, entertain the people with festivals and shows (p. 61).

Clearly, such behavior seems respectful and accommodating. The key,

though, is that organizational Machiavellians will be guided by expediency,

rather than by principle. For example, Machiavelli also advised for princes

who

acquire such a state [by birth], if he means to keep it, must see

two things: first, that the blood of the ancient line of princes be

destroyed; and second, that no change be made in respect to

laws or taxes. (p. 3)



5/29

Study 1: Scale Development

Hypothesis Testing

The purpose of Study 1 is to develop a scale of Machiavellianism appro-

priate for an organizational context. As subject matter experts, we reviewed

all of the chapters from Machiavellis (1513/1998) The Prince in order to

better understand his philosophy. Based up on our review ofThe Prince, we

believe that Machiavellianism is multifaceted.

In order to design items for a new scale, we collected 91 passages from

Machiavellis manuscript. We chose passages that either introduce or follow

stories relayed by Machiavelli and hold advice for princes. While many ofthese passages advocate using deceit, others suggest that a good leader needs

to gain the good will of his or her subjects.

To reflect an organizational context, we rewrote the passages to make

them relevant within todays organizations, to abridge the length of the

passages, and to make them more appropriate to distribute to participants.

For example, Machiavelli (1513/1998) writes

as to the mental training of which we have spoken, a

prince should read histories, and in these should note theactions of great men, observe how they conducted themselves

in their wars, and examine the causes of their victories and

defeats, so as to avoid the latter and imitate them in the

former. (p. 8)

We rewrote this passage to read One should always read about great pre-

vious leaders in order to emulate them. It should be noted that we only

reviewed Machiavellis The Prince, as opposed to The Discourses, because

some scholars have suggested that The Princefocuses on the role of a ruler,

while The Discourses focuses more on arguments for having a republican

form of government (Machiavelli, 1531/1984).

Method

Participants

Study participants included 402 individuals (130 males, 272 females) whoworked at least 20 hours per week. All participants were taking classes at a

large, urban university where almost all students are employed, many in

full-time, permanent positions. Participants ages ranged from 18 to over 49

years, with 21% of the sample older than age 25. There were 69% of respon-

1872 KESSLER ET AL.


6/29

dents who identified themselves as Caucasian, 9% as African American, 10%

as Hispanic/Latino, 4% as Asian American, and 8% as other. In addition,21% of participants jobs were managerial, and 49% classified their jobs as

white collar.

Measures

Organizational Machiavellianism items. We developed 91 items using 91

passages and excerpts from Machiavellis The Prince (1513/1998). Based on

Christie and Geiss (1970) method, we rewrote each passage to create ascale item reflecting a modern organizational context. This approach was

used original work. The items were rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Sample items include When enter-

ing a new company, it is important to gain the good will of those already

there, and An effective individual behaves in a devious fashion when

necessary.

Demographic variables. The demographic variables section consisted of

seven items: gender, ethnicity, age, educational level, job status (i.e., mana-

gerial or nonmanagerial), job type (i.e., white collar or blue collar), andnumber of hours worked per week.

Procedure

The survey was administered to volunteers over a 4-month period in both

online and traditional paper-and-pencil formats. Using this data, we con-

ducted three principle component factor analyses with varimax rotations.

Results

In the first factor analyses we included all 91 items. An examination of

the scree plot indicates support for a three-factor solution (the three factors

accounted for 36.9% of the variance). After the third factor, the scree plot

indicated that the remaining factors accounted for very little variance (


7/29

In the third factor analysis, we again forced a three-factor solution and

kept items using the same criteria we applied in the two previous factoranalyses (see Table 1 for the items and factor loadings). This resulted in 6

items loading on each factor. After reviewing the content of items loading on

each factor, the factors were subsequently named Maintaining Power, Man-

agement Practices, and Manipulativeness. Consistent with the goal of

re-examining the philosophy, we decided to name the scale the Organiza-

tional Machiavellianism Scale (OMS).

Discussion

The results of Study 1 suggest that the Machiavellianism philosophy is,

indeed, multifaceted and is composed of more than just manipulativeness. An

examination of the scree plot suggested three factors. After examining the

items, the three factors were named Maintaining Power, Management

Practices, and Manipulativeness.

Study 2: Scale Refinement and Construct Validity Evidence

The purpose of Study 2 is threefold. The first goal is to confirm the

obtained factor structure from Study 1. The second and third goals are to

review the relationship between Christie and Geiss (1970) Mach IV and the

OMS, as well as the pattern of relationships between these scales and other

organizational variables, respectively. While Christie and Geis focused on the

manipulative aspects of Machiavellianism, the OMS takes a broader view of

the concept. Therefore, we expect only one factor of the OMS (i.e., manipu-

lativeness) to correlate with Christie and Geiss Mach IV. This is because, the

relationships found between the Mach IV and organizational variablesspecifically, the Big Five personality traits (Lee & Ashton, 2005), social skills

(Gable & Dangello, 1994; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; House & Howell,

1992; Mudrack & Mason, 1995; Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1998), and emotions

(Wastell & Booth, 2003)suggest that Machiavellianism is a negative orga-

nizational construct.

Although we expect the Manipulativeness factor of the OMS to yield

similar patterns as the Mach IV, we believe that the relationships between the

aforementioned organizational variables and the remaining two factors of

the OMS will question previously held views of Machiavellianism, at leastin organizational settings. Also, although we are unaware of any research

that has examined the relationship between Machiavellianism and political

skill within organizations, we believe that those who score high on the OMS

factors are motivated to possess strong political skills, and expect this pattern

1874 KESSLER ET AL.


8/29

Table1

Factor

Analysisan

dItem

Ana

lysis

Re

sults:

Stu

dy

1

Item

Factor1

Factor2

Factor3

2.Aneffectiv

eindividualbuildsapowerbaseofstrongpeople.

-.040

-.077

.571

3.Apersont

hatunderstandsconflictwillbe

respectedbyotherpeople.

-.012

.013

.545

4.Itisgoodtobeonthelook-outfornewo

pportunitiestoadvanceonesp

ositionintheorganization.

-.233

.041

.611

5.Oneshouldknowhowtoappearkindand

useitforpersonalgain.

.052

.194

.364

6.Apersons

houldconsistentlyrewardthosethatworkforhim/her.

-.015

.118

.480

7.Employees

shouldbewatchedwithaney

eofsuspicionbecauseitisnaturalforpeopletodesireto

acquirepower.

.111

.523

.216

10.Sincemostemployeesareambitious,they

willonlydogooddeedsifitbe

nefitsthem.

.058

.470

.079

15.Whenseek

ingrevenge,anindividualshou

ldcompletelydefeatacompetit

ortoensurenoretaliation.

.121

.496

-.032

18.Itisnotim

portantforanindividualtolea

rnaboutthemistakesofunsuc

cessfulpeople.

.516

.075

-.058

19.Apersons

houldtakecaretoalwaysappeartobemerciful,upright,andhumane.

-.223

.019

.465

21.Sincemostpeopleareweak,arationalind

ividualshouldtakeadvantageofthesituationtomaximize

his/herowngains.

.312

.553

.069

22.Itisimpor

tanttobeagoodactor,butalsocapableofconcealingthistalent.

.029

.517

.179

23.Itisnothe

lpfultolearnfromandimitate

greatindividualsthathavecom

ebeforeyou.

.699

.113

-.061

24.Itisnotim

portanttobeaggressiveandcleverwhendealingwithotherorganizationmembers(R).

.546

.011

-.053

25.Itisnotim

portantforapersontoencouragehis/hersubordinatestalents.

.581

.181

-.071

29.Itisnotim

portantforanindividualtokeephis/heremployeescontent.

.517

.139

.054

30.Itiseasytointroduceandenforcenewrules.

.536

.163

.008

31.Themosteffectivemeansofgettingpeopletobehaveinanethicalfashionisbymakingthemfearfulof

behavingo

therwise.

.312

.516

.034

Note

.Factor1=

MaintainingPower;Factor2=

ManagementPractices;Factor3=

Manipulativeness.



9/29

of relationships to provide additional evidence regarding previously held

views of Machiavellianism in organizations.Machiavellianism and the Big Five personality traits. The Big Five model

suggests that personality can be described in five dimensions: openness to

experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism

(Costa & McCrae, 1992). Most researchers who have examined the relation-

ships between Machiavellianism and the Big Five personality variables have

focused on neuroticism because, according to Christie and Geiss (1970)

model, a lack of psychopathology is necessary for Machiavellian personality

types to successfully manipulate others. They contended that individuals who

suffer from psychological disorders possess deficiencies, rendering themunable to evaluate others in social situations. Researchers have examined this

proposition and have found mixed results (Christie, 1970b; Grams & Rogers,

1990; McCutcheon, 2002; Paulhus, Williams, & Harms, 2001; Ray, 1976,

1979).

More recently, Lee and Ashton (2005) expanded research on Machiavel-

lianism and the Big Five personality traits. Using Christie and Geiss (1970)

measure of Machiavellianism, they found that Machiavellianism was nega-

tively related to agreeableness and conscientiousness. Although negative

in direction, they did not find significant relationships among Machiavel-lianism and extraversion, openness to experience, or emotional stability (i.e.,

neuroticism).

Machiavellianism and social skills. The relationship between social skills

and Machiavellianism is perhaps one of the most intriguing concepts associ-

ated with the study of Machiavellianism. Several studies (Gable & Dangello,

1994; Hogan et al., 1994; House & Howell, 1992; Mudrack & Mason, 1995;

Wilson et al., 1998) have suggested a link between the behaviors people

exhibit in social interactions and their tendency to use Machiavellian tactics.

Nelson and Gilbertson (1991) proposed a four-cell model depicting high andlow Machs against dangerous and benign typologies. In their model, danger-

ous high Machs are more likely to seek out social interactions that involve

manipulative tactics. Wilson et al. (1996) related the psychological research

on Machiavellianism to theories in evolutionary literature. They suggested

that Machiavellianism can be used as a set of rules for social interactions

wherein the concepts of trust, honor, and decency are vulnerable to

short-term exploitation. Although their research presented intriguing ideas,

Wilson et al. (1996) only provided hypotheses between the evolutionary

psychological Machiavellian literatures. They concluded that future researchshould be conducted and that their hypotheses should be used as a basis for

designing new Machiavellian perspectives.

Machiavellianism and emotional intelligence(EI). There have been incon-

sistent results concerning the link between Machiavellianism and emotion-

1876 KESSLER ET AL.


10/29

related skills, such as emotional intelligence (EI). At one extreme, Wastell

and Booth (2003) suggested that a Machiavellian is a person who is uncon-nected to his or her emotions (i.e., is an alexithymic) (p. 730). Wastell and

Booth (2003) proposed that Machiavellians have an inability to connect to

others emotionally and, as a result of this deficiency, treat people as objects

or means to ends. They also found that Machiavellianism was positively

associated with an inability to identify feelings.

Austin, Farrelly, Black, and Moore (2007) used Christie and Geiss (1970)

Machiavellianism scale to examine its relationship to EI assessed with both

Bar-Ons (1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQI) and the Mayer,

Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, &Caruso, 2002). They also examined how these two EI measures related to

emotional manipulation. They found that Machiavellianism was related to

emotional manipulation, but that EI was not. These results question previous

lines of research regarding the relationship between Machiavellianism and

emotional skills (Wastell & Booth, 2003). More specifically, it seems that high

Machs choose to use their emotional skills only in the context of manipulat-

ing others.

Machiavellianism and political skill. We are unaware of previous research

examining the relationship between political skill and Machiavellianism.However, based on Ferris, Perrew, Anthony, and Gilmores (2000) defini-

tion of political skill, we believe that meaningful relationships are likely.

Ferris et al. (2000) defined political skill as the extent to which an

individual combines social astuteness with the ability to relate well, and

otherwise demonstrate situationally appropriate behavior in a disarmingly

charming and engaging manner that inspires confidence, trust, sincerity, and

genuineness (p. 30). They explained that political skill is composed of four

dimensions: social astuteness (SA), interpersonal influence (II), networking

ability (NA), and apparent sincerity (AS; Ferris et al., 2005). We believe thatpolitical skills represent tools that employees use to accomplish certain goals.

Therefore, we propose that the three OMS factors and political skill are

positively related because of the nature of influence tactics and political

behavior that they share.

Current Study and Hypothesis Testing

To accomplish the first goal of Study 2, we used confirmatory factoryanalysis to confirm the factor structure that we obtained in Study 1. The

second purpose was addressed by determining the relationship between the

OMS and Christie and Geiss (1970) scale. Because Christie and Geis focused

solely on the manipulativeness aspects of the philosophy, we expect that



11/29

only the Manipulativeness factor of the OMS will relate to their scale. Third,

we examined the relationship of the three OMS factors with personality,variables, emotions, and political skill. Although some relationships between

Christie and Geiss Mach IV and other variables have been inconsistent, we

believe that the relationships between the Manipulativeness factor of the

OMS and these variables should mirror the general pattern of relationships

found with Christie and Geiss Mach IV.

Hypothesis 1. The OMS will fit a three-factor structure con-

sisting of maintaining power, management practices, and

manipulativeness.

Christie and Geiss (1970) Mach IV focused on the more negative and

manipulative side of the Machiavellian construct. We propose that while high

Machs can behave in a manipulative and harsh fashion, they only do so when

it is necessary to achieve desired ends. However, we believe that this is only

one part of the Machiavellian construct. Therefore, we propose that Christie

and Geiss Mach IV will be positively related to the Manipulativeness factor

of the OMS, but will have no relationship with the other two factors.

Hypothesis 2. There will be a positive relationship between theManipulativeness factor of the OMS and the Mach IV, but

there will be no relationship between the Mach IV and the other

factors of the OMS.

Furthermore, we believe that only certain OMS factors will positively

relate to conscientiousness. Conscientious employees pay attention to detail

and are achievement-oriented and hard-working. Because it is important

to be able to maintain power in the workplace and manage others, con-

scientious employees might believe that engaging in these behaviorsis important. However, within the organizational environment, the open

manipulation of others is not encouraged. Therefore, conscientious employ-

ees are less likely to believe that engaging in manipulative behavior is

appropriate.

Hypothesis 3. There will be a positive relationship between two

factors of the OMS (i.e., Maintaining Power, Management

Practices) and conscientiousness, but there will be a negative

relationship between the factor of Manipulativeness andconscientiousness.

Additionally, all three factors of the OMS (i.e., Maintaining Power, Man-

agement Practices, Manipulativeness) require employees to interact with one

1878 KESSLER ET AL.


12/29

another. Extraverted individuals tend to be more outgoing and sociable.

Therefore, individuals who score high on each of the OMS factors are morelikely to be extraverted.

Hypothesis 4. All three factors of the OMS will be positively

related to extraversion.

The relationship between Machiavellianism and neuroticism has been

documented since the early 1970s. The results of most studies have indicated

a negative relationship between the two constructs. Christie and Geis (1970)

suggested that Machiavellians lack neurotic characteristics because of their

ability to manipulate. Since we believe that the OMS Manipulativeness factorwill be correlated with Christie and Geiss scale, we expect a negative rela-

tionship with this factor of the OMS and neuroticism. Additionally, Paulhus

et al. (2001) suggested that neurotic individuals have difficulties relating to

others. We propose that those who score high on the remaining two OMS

factors (i.e., Maintaining Power, Managing Others) will believe that they are

able to relate to others.

Hypothesis 5. There will be a negative relationship between all

three factors of the OMS and neuroticism.In order to maintain power and manage others in todays workforce, it is

necessary to display a degree of flexibility. Agreeable individuals are better

able to maintain a degree of flexibility and, therefore, are hypothesized to

score higher on the first two OMS factors (i.e., Maintaining Power, Manage-

ment Practices). However, if individuals are overly agreeable, they will not be

able to maintain power or manage those around them. Therefore, we propose

that the relationship between agreeableness and the first two factors of the

OMS will be positive and significant, but not extremely strong. On the other

hand, employees who believe that it is beneficial to manipulate those aroundthem will tend to be disagreeable with others because their goal is to take

advantage of other employees.

Hypothesis 6. There will positive relationships between the first

two factors of the OMS (Maintaining Power, Management

Practices) and agreeableness, but a negative relationship

between the Manipulativeness factor of the OMS and

agreeableness.

There is an increasing trend toward influencing other employees using

social skills, as opposed to commanding employees through the traditional

organizational hierarchy. EI is about being aware of ones own emotions, as

well as the emotions of others, and using this information to influence others.



13/29

Traditionally, researchers have suggested that high Machs are devoid of

emotional skills altogether (Wastell & Booth, 2003). However, a recent study(Austin et al., 2007) suggested that high Machs might be able to perceive

the emotions of others and use this information for manipulative purposes.

Therefore, we propose that those who score high on the Manipulativeness

factor of the OMS will possess high levels of EI. We also believe that those

high on the OMS factors of Maintaining Power and Management Practices

will possess higher amounts of EI because they will need this skill set to

accomplish their goals within todays organizations.

Hypothesis 7. There will be a positive relationship between emo-

tional intelligence and all three factors of the OMS.

We are unaware of research that has examined the relationship between

political skill and Machiavellianism. However, we propose that the two

concepts are positively related as a result of the nature of influence tactics and

political behavior that they share.

Hypothesis 8. There will be a positive relationship between the

three OMS factors (Maintaining Power, Management Prac-

tices, Manipulativeness) and the four political skill facets (social

astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and

apparent sincerity).

Method

Participants

An independent sample of 465 individuals (110 males, 355 females) from

the same subject population as Study 1 were participants in Study 2. Partici-pants mean age was 28.3 years, and 67% of the respondents identified

themselves as Caucasian. Again, 21% of participants jobs were managerial.

Measures

Organizational Machiavellianism Scale(OMS). The 18-item, three-factor

scale developed in Study 1 was used in the current study. Each of the items

were scored on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) t o 6(strongly agree), with higher scores indicating that an individual scored

higher on the OMS dimension. The alphas for the Maintaining Power, Man-

agement Practices, and Manipulativeness subscales of the OMS were .67, .72,

and .76, respectively.

1880 KESSLER ET AL.


14/29

Mach IV Scale(Christie & Geis, 1970). The Mach IV scale is comprised

of 20 statements (10 of which are negatively phrased) that pertain towhether an individual adheres to the principles of Machiavellianism. Each

of the statements was scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores representing high Machs

and low scores representing low Machs. According to Christie & Geis, high

Machs are skilled at deception and manipulation. Split-half reliabilities

based on several different studies yielded a moderately high coefficient

alpha of .79 (Mudrack, 2000).

Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). The BFI

consists of 44 items that measure the dimensions of the Big Five. Theinstrument was developed out of factor-analytic work involving the

five-factor personality model. The inventory includes 8 items that

assess extraversion, 9 items that assess agreeableness, 9 items that assess

conscientiousness, 8 items that assess neuroticism, and 10 items that

assess openness to experience. The items were scored on a 5-point

scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly), with higher

scores reflecting a higher standing on each of the variables. Sample

items include I see myself as someone who generates a lot of enthusiasm

(extraversion), and I see myself as someone who can be moody (neuroti-cism). John et al. reported alpha coefficients in the low .80s for each of the

dimensions.

Emotional intelligence. To assess EI, we used the Wong and Law Emo-

tional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS; Wong & Law, 2002). This instrument

consists of 16 items that are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 ( strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of

EI. Sample items include I have good understanding of my own emotions,

and I am a good observer of others emotions. Wong and Law reported

reliability estimates ranging from .76 to .89.Political Skill Inventory (PSI; Ferris et al., 2005). The PSI is an 18-item

measure that is rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to

7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of political skill.

Sample items include It is easy for me to develop good rapport with most

people, and I spend a lot of time and effort at work networking with

others. The four factors include Social Astuteness (5 items), Interpersonal

Influence (4 items), Networking Ability (6 items), and Apparent Sincerity (3

items). Ferris et al. reported an overall internal consistency reliability esti-

mate of .89.Demographic variables. The demographic variables section consisted of

seven items: gender, ethnicity, age, educational level, job status (i.e., mana-

gerial or nonmanagerial), job type (i.e., white collar or blue collar), and

number of hours worked per week.



15/29

Procedure

All instruments were combined into one assessment battery that was given

to study participants. The survey was administered online, and the assess-

ment battery took approximately 25 to 30 min to complete.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL (Jreskog & Srbom,

2006) was run to confirm the obtained factor structure of the scale. Factors

were allowed to correlate with one another. Although the root mean square

error of approximation (RMSEA) is the most popular index, we also examined

other indexes, such as the comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI),

non-normed fit index (NNFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and adjusted

goodness-of-fit index (AGFI). For the CFI, NFI, GFI, and NNFI, values of at

least .90 indicate a good fit; for the AGFI, a value of at least .80 indicates a

good fit; and for the RMSEA, a value less than .08 indicates good fit.

The three-factor model for the 18 items showed good fit (see Table 2).

These findings support our central premise that Machiavellianism is, indeed,

Table 2

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Statistics: Study 2

Fit index Three-factor model (18 items)

CFI .93

NFI .89

NNFI .92

GFI .93

AGFI .91

RMSEA .05

c2 test of exact fit 316.82

df 132

Note. CFI =comparative fit index; NFI =normed fitindex; NNFI = non-normed fit index; GFI =goodness-of-fit index; AGFI= adjusted goodness-of-fit index;RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation.

1882 KESSLER ET AL.


16/29

a multifaceted construct. More specifically, they provide support for

Hypothesis 1.

Relationships With Other Variables

Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table 3, and

the intercorrelations among study variables are presented in Table 4. Con-

sistent with Hypothesis 2, only the Manipulativeness factor of the OMS was

significantly correlated with Christie and Geiss (1970) Mach IV scale.

The following hypotheses examine the relationship between the OMS

and the Big Five. Hypothesis 3 stated that both Maintaining Power andManagement Practices factors of the OMS would positively relate to con-

scientiousness, while the third factor of the OMS (i.e., Manipulativeness)

would negatively relate to conscientiousness. This hypothesis was supported.

Hypothesis 4 was partially supported; only one factor of the OMS (i.e.,

Maintaining Power) was significantly related to extraversion. Hypothesis 5

was also only partially supported. Maintaining Power was negatively related

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for Study 2 Variables

Variable M SD

OMS: Maintaining Power 28.82 3.37

OMS: Management Practices 25.76 5.36

OMS: Manipulativeness 19.44 4.77

Mach IV 72.89 12.05

Social astuteness 27.93 4.11

Interpersonal influence 22.74 4.11

Networking ability 30.88 6.42

Apparent sincerity 17.39 2.41

Emotional intelligence 88.27 12.81

Extraversion 31.07 5.47

Agreeableness 37.24 4.56

Conscientiousness 37.44 4.28Neuroticism 25.80 6.22

Openness 38.70 5.86

Note. OMS=Organizational Machiavellianism Scale.



17/29

Table4

Correlations

Among

Stu

dy

2Variable

s

Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1.OMS:Power

(.67)

2.OMS:Ma

nage

.14**

(.72)

3.OMS:Ma

nip.

.17**-.33**

(.76)

4.Extraversion

.18**-.01

-.01

(.74)

5.Agreeable

ness

.25**

.21**-.28**

.24**

(.68)

6.Conscient

.

.22**

.23**-.22**

.26**

.50**

(.63)

7.Neuroticism

-.10*

.02

.01

-.30**-.30**-.27**

(.74)

8.Openness

.15**

.13**-.07

.35**

.30**

.27**-.16*

(.76)

9.EI

.36**

.10

.01

.30**

.45**

.44**-.47**

.26**

(.92)

10.PSI:SA

.42**

.10*

.02

.38**

.36**

.39**-.32**

.34**

.71**

(.82)

11.PSI:II

.40**

.13*

-.04

.50**

.48**

.40**-.37**

.29**

.66**

.77**(.88)

12.PSI:NA

.36**-.06

.09

.45**

.30**

.23**-.32**

.19**

.44**

.61**.67**

(.89)

13.PSI:AS

.41**

.20**-.05

.30**

.41**

.43**-.19**

.38**

.61**

.79**.64**

.50**

(.83)

14.PSITotal

.45**

.06

.02

.51**

.45**

.40**-.37**

.32**

.67**

.89**.88**

.88**

.78**

(.94)

15.MachIV

.01

-.09

.45**

-.11

-.43**-.33**

.24**-.12*

-.26**-.18**-.26**-.14**-.24**-.26**

(.74)

Note

.OMS=O

rganizationalMachiavellianism

Scale;Power=

MaintainingP

ower;Manage=

Management

Practices;Manip.=

Manipulativ

eness;

EI=

emotional

intelligence;PSI=

PoliticalSkillsInventory;SA=

socialastuteness;II=

interpersonalinfluence;N

A=

networkingability;AS=

apparent

sincerity;Mach

IV=

ChristieandGeis(1970)M

achiavellianismIVScale.

Nsrangefrom386to452.

*p

kessler et al. 2010 jasp

Documents