ABSTRACT. Key words: Machiavellianism, Emotional Intelligence (EI), Role Competence, Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), and self-monitoring.

Transcription

1 Machiavellianism and leader member exchange: The effects of self-monitoring, role competence, and emotional intelligence. Loizos Christou College of Tourism and Hotel Management Nicosia, Cyprus Gian Casimir University of Newcastle NSW, Australia ABSTRACT We examine the relationship between Machiavellianism and leader-member-exchange (LMX) and how this relationship is influenced by self-monitoring, role competence and emotional intelligence (EI). Data from 250 full-time employees from organizations in Southern Cyprus provide support for the argument that the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX increases as self-monitoring increases. The results, however, do not support the arguments that role competence and EI influence the relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX. Key words: Machiavellianism, Emotional Intelligence (EI), Role Competence, Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), and self-monitoring. INTRODUCTION Based on Machiavelli s (1515) work, Machiavellianism is a term that cynically denotes individuals who are untrusting, selfish and vicious (Reimers 2004). Machiavellianism has become associated with strategic cunning, deceit, flattery, and exploitative tactics accompanied by unethical norms in relation to the end justifying the means (Moss 2005). Christie and Geis (1970) conceptualised Machiavellian individuals as immoral and uncaring towards others. Machiavellian individuals are manipulative and view others as weak and cowardly, and therefore perceive others as being easily pressured and manipulated (Macrosson and Hemphill 2001). Machiavellian individuals would want to develop high-quality relationships with their supervisors for the benefits supervisors can provide (Erdogan and Enders 2007). The quality of the relationship an employee has with his/her supervisor may be influenced not only by the follower s level of Machiavellianism but also by other characteristics of the follower. Our purpose is to add to the literature on Machiavellianism by examining whether the relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX is influenced by the follower s self-monitoring, role competence, and emotional intelligence. According to LMX theory (Graen et al. 1977), dyadic relationships and work roles are developed and maintained by a broad range of exchanges between leaders and followers. In the developmental process of such relationships, members invest resources in order to develop relationships with the leaders who provide increased job latitude or delegation in exchange for members strong commitment to work goals (Dienesch and Liden 1986). This results in mutual relationship building where members can be allowed responsibility, influential decision making and resources, have high levels of responsibility, decision influence, and access to resources (i.e., high-quality relationships). Such individuals belong to the leader s in-group. On the other hand, individuals who are not in the leader s in-group are given low levels of responsibility and have little influence in decision making (i.e., low-quality relationships) (Schrieshiem, Castro and Cogliser 1999). High-quality leadermember relationships have been shown to produce positive and better outcomes for followers, in terms of increased job satisfaction (Seers 1989), affective organizational commitment and performance (Gerstner and Day 1995).

2 Machiavellians would seek in-group membership because members of the leader s in-group receive more mentoring and support from the leader than do out-group members (Pan, Zhou and Zhou 2010). Machiavellians who successfully become part of the leader s in-group by being manipulative and conniving will take advantage of the benefits (i.e., favoritism, support, open communication) of in-group membership in a calculative effort to improve their careers (Martin, Anderson and Thweatt 1998). Leaders provide in-group members but not outgroup members with important and challenging tasks to complete, support, understanding, and a personal relationship (McKenna 2006). Self-monitoring is a personality trait that can influence the ability to control and monitor self-expressive presentation and behaviour, based on interpersonal cues and social situations (Snyder 1974). High selfmonitoring individuals can successfully project a good public image, can be very sensitive towards situational and interpersonal cues, and can regulate the way they express themselves publicly. Hence, high self-monitoring individuals in social situations become what each situation wants them to be (Snyder 1987). On the other hand, individuals with low self-monitoring cannot regulate and control their expressive behaviour, and as a consequence they express behaviour that reflects their inner attitudes and beliefs (Gangestad and Snyder 2000). Self-monitoring allows Machiavellians to control their impression management (Corral and Calvete 2000) to create a favourable image among colleagues, gain greater popularity, and develop positive workplace relationships in order to acquire access to instrumental and expressive resources that are needed for high performance. These resources can be in the form of information flow, decision making influence, support and friendships. In turn, all these can positively influence work outcomes (Jehn and Shah 1997). Machiavellianism and self-monitoring appear to be complementary qualities that can benefit individuals who seek to develop high-quality relationships with their leaders. Specifically, Machiavellianism is the willingness to be manipulative and deceptive whereas self-monitoring is the ability to adapt one s self-presentation to suit the requirements of the situation. Self-monitoring can therefore allow a Machiavellian individual to appear kind and helpful towards others even though the individual is self-centered (Buttery and Richter 2003; Leone and Corte 1994). Machiavellian individuals (i.e., negative attitude towards others) who have a high level of selfmonitoring (i.e., the ability to create a good impression) can improve relationships with their supervisor, by modifying their behavior to impress and manipulate others, in order to gain better and more effective work (Snyder 1974; Turnley and Bolino 2001). The effect of Machiavellianism on LMX therefore depends on selfmonitoring. Hypothesis 1: The relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX is moderated by self-monitoring: The strength of the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX increases as self-monitoring increases. Role competence reflects work engagement and a positive state of mind in relation to work fulfillment in the following three ways: i) Rigour, which reflects an individual s readiness to devote effort to work tasks, exhibit high energy, and remain resolute when faced with job-related difficulties; ii) Dedication, which reflects the readiness of an individual to identify with his/her job in order to show certain feelings (i.e., enthusiasm, challenge and inspiration); and iii) Absorption, which reflects the level of involvement with one s work (Schaufeli et al. 2002; Schaufeli and Bakker 2004; Schaufeli, Taris and Rhenen 2008). Machiavellians can use discretional role competence tactics (i.e., frequent feedback information seeking and open discussion of errors) (Edmondson, 1999) in an effort to encourage their leader to freely share their ideas and experiences with them (Oldham and Cummings 1996). Machiavellians can use these tactics to demonstrate their competence to the leader in an attempt to obtain membership of the leader s in-group. Machiavellians who perform their jobs proficiently are therefore more likely to become members of the leader s in-group than are Machiavellians who are not competent in their jobs and are thus also less likely to develop a close relationship with the leader. Hypothesis 2: The relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX is moderated by role competence: The strength of the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and increases as role competence increases.

3 Emotional intelligence (EI) is a term that can include the following four abilities: i) express and perceive emotions, ii) use emotional thinking, iii) understand emotions, and iv) manage and regulate emotions. However, these four abilities must follow a hierarchical order with regard to level of complexity, acquisition and always start from the most basic (Mayer and Salovey 1997). For example, if one can have good emotional perception in the first place, one can make use of mood and understand emotions, which can help one to have the breadth and necessary knowledge to manage and cope with emotions (Mayer 2001). Emotional intelligence allows individuals to understand and control their own emotions as well as interpret the emotional expressions of others. As a result, EI enables individuals to adapt to different social contexts (Engelberg and Sjoberg 2004; Hatfield, Cacioppo and Rapso 1994). For instance, in order to perform better, individuals must have the ability to transfer emotions and be sensitive to the emotions of others (Engelberg and Sjoberg 2004; Aziz 2004). Hence, it appears that EI can have positive implications beyond work performance, as it can contribute positively to career success through the development of behaviours that positively impact upon one s workplace relationships (Watson and Pennebaker 1989; Segrin and Abrahamson 1994). EI allows Machiavellians to manage their distractive emotions and impulses, be persistent in reaching goals despite setbacks, and use effective diplomacy and persuasion to induce desirable responses from their leader. EI facilitates positive social interactions and therefore can help to improve one s relationship with the supervisor. EI can help Machiavellians to manage and monitor their own emotions and correctly read the leader s emotions thereby allowing them to develop close relationships with the leader. Machiavellians with high EI are therefore more likely than are Machiavellians with low EI to have a high-quality relationship with the leader and attain membership of the leader s in-group. Hypothesis 3: The relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX is moderated by EI: The strength of the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and increases as EI increases. FINDINGS Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (%) Gender Male Female Age (years) > Education High School Diploma Bachelor Masters Doctorate Years in present organization > Years in present job 0-3 > 3-6 > 6-9 > 9-12 > Level in the organization Non-Management Lower Management Middle Management Senior Management Executive Management We used the following instruments to measure the latent constructs: Machiavellian Personality scale (Christie 1999), Self-monitoring scale (Snyder 1974), Leader member exchange scale (Graen and Uhl-Bein 1995), Role competence scale (Barclay and Smith 1997), and Emotional Intelligence scale (Salovey and Mayer 1990).

4 Table 2 contains the correlations between the measured variables. It is noteworthy that there is a non-significant correlation between Machiavellianism and LMX. Table 2. Correlation Coefficients for the Measured Variables* Age Gender Educ YrsOrg YrsJob Level Mach SM LMX RC Age Gender -.13 Education YrsOrg YrsJob Level ) Mach SM LMX RC EI * r >.14, p <.05, r >.19, p <.01, r >.24, p <.001 (one-tailed) YrsOrg = years in current organisation, YrsJob = years in current job, Level = level in organisation Mach = Machiavellianism, SM = self-monitoring, LMX = leader-member exchange, RC = role competence, EI = emotional intelligence. The hypotheses were tested using the product-term procedure that is based on a hierarchical regression analysis. The independent variable and the moderators were standardized before creating the product-terms. Hypothesis 1 is supported. The relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX is moderated by selfmonitoring: For the product-term, b =.13, p <.05, ΔR 2 =.035. Aiken and West s (1991) method revealed that the correlation between Machiavellianism and LMX is significant for the high self-monitoring group (i.e., r =.46, p <.05, n = 23) but not for the low self-monitoring group (r =.10, p >.05, n = 22). The strength of the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX therefore increases as self-monitoring increases. Hypothesis 2 is not supported: The relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX is not moderated by role competence: For the product-term, b = -.04, p >.05, ΔR 2 =.001. Hypothesis 3 is not supported: The relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX is not moderated by EI: For the product-term, b = -.13, p >.05, ΔR 2 =.015. DISCUSSION The findings indicate that self-monitoring can help Machiavellians to develop high-quality relationships with their supervisors. Machiavellianism can be regarded as the motive to manipulate and connive in order to gain membership of the leader s in-group whilst self-monitoring can be regarded as the ability to modify selfpresentation to suit the requirements of the situation. Machiavellians who are self-monitors are able to adapt the necessary expressive behaviour needed in different situations. Machiavellian self-monitors are thus willing and able to read social cues, act opportunistically, and modify their behaviour accordingly (Leone and Corte 1994), and have the ability to assess their relationships and use these relationships to their advantage (i.e., use others for their own benefit) (Repachioli et al. 2003). Furthermore, such individuals tend to use personal appeals to influence others (i.e., they appear nice and helpful towards others) (Buttery and Richter 2003). These characteristics can be of great importance to individuals who wish to make a good impression on others such as when developing a good relationship with one s supervisor. Hence, Machiavellianism can be regarded as an intention or an attitude towards others and when this is coupled with the ability to create a good impression (i.e., self-monitoring), the quality of the relationship with one s

5 supervisor increases. Through self-monitoring Machiavellian individuals are able to use their social relations to manipulate others for better and more effective work outcomes (Snyder and Simpson 1984). Especially, through their ability to impress and manipulate others in an effort to get along and appear more likeable (Snyder 1974; Turnley and Bolino 2001). Machiavellians individuals with a high level of self-monitoring are able to cross social divides (Day and Kilduff 2003) and make friends and mentors of a higher status in their selected social networks (Mehra, Leonard and Katerberg 2003). Such high status social relations in the end will allow them access to instrumental and expressive resources necessary to achieve high performance and to develop enhanced instrumental outcomes (Lin 2001). However, based on the fact that this is the first study to examine these relationships, so there are no other studies to which the findings from this study can be compared. As mentioned earlier, Machiavellianism and self-monitoring are complementary attributes (i.e., the ability to adapt self-presentation to use others for personal gain) that allow an individual to develop high-quality relationships with their leaders and ultimately enhance their careers (Leone and Corte, 1994; Repachioli et al., 2003). The hypotheses that emotional intelligence and role competence moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX were not supported. A possible reason for these findings is that Machiavellianism involves a perspective of others that is calculative and manipulative. It is likely that people, such as immediate supervisors, who are targeted by High Machs are often able to detect the conniving ways of High Machs if the subordinate is unable to hide their true intentions via a high level of self-monitoring. As a result, whether or not a High Mach follower has high EI or is highly capable (i.e., role competence) makes no difference to the quality of the leader-follower relationship. This study is limited in several ways. Firstly, the generalizability of the findings is questionable because the sample was drawn exclusively from Cyprus, with all respondents living on only one half of the island, and most of the respondents low-level managers or non-managers. Secondly, a cross-sectional design was used thereby ruling out any claims of causality. Thirdly, the findings could be biased by social desirability in that respondents might have purposely responded in image-enhancing ways. Finally, all of the data were collected from a single source at a single point in time thereby bringing the issue of common method variance into account. However, that there is a moderation effect and some non-significant correlations between some of the latent variables, common method bias does not appear to be problematic. IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS The findings of this study indicate that Machiavellianism when combined with self-monitoring can lead to highquality relationships with leaders. Hence, managers must be aware of this and need to incorporate this knowledge in their employment practices, such as when employing or promoting employees. CONCLUSION This study shows that followers with high levels of Machiavellianism are more likely to develop high-quality relationship with their leaders when the followers have a high level of self-monitoring. The relationship between Machiavellianism and LMX is not affected by the role competence or EI of followers. REFERENCES Aziz, A. (2004). Machiavellianism scores and s elf rated performance of automobile salespersons, Psychological Reports, 95: Barclay, D. and Smith, J. (1997). The effect of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships, Journal of Marketing, 61: Buttery, E. A. and Richter, E. M. (2003). On Machiavellian management, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24: Christie, R. and Geis, F. L. (Eds.) (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism, New York: Academic Press.

6 Corra, S. and Calvete, E. (2000). Machiavellianism: Dimensionality of Mach IV and its relation to self monitoring in a Spanish Sample, The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3: Day, D. V. and Kilduff, M. (2003). Self-monitoring personality and work relationships: Individual differences in social networks. In Ryan, A. M. and Barrifick, M. R. (eds.), Personality and work, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: Dienesch, R. M. and Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development, Academy of Management Review, 40: Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): Engelberg, E. and Sjoberg, L. (2004). Emotional intelligence, effect intensity and social Adjustment, Personality and Individual Differences, 37: Erdogan, B., and Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors' perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: Gangestad, S. W. and Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal, Psychological Bulletin, 126: Gerstner, C. R. and Day, D. V. (1995). Putting Leadership Back into Leader-Member Exchange: A Meta- Analytic Review and Extension, Paper Presenter at the 10 th annual conference of the Society for Industrial- Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL, May 19. Graen et al. (1977). Effects of linking-pin quality upon the quality of working life of lower participants: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial understructure, Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: Hatfield, E. Cacioppo, J. T. and Rapso, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jen, K. A. and Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4): Leone, C. and Corte, V. (1994). Concern for-self-presentation and self-congruence: Self-monitoring, Machiavellianism, and social contracts, Social Behaviour and Personality, 22: Lin, N. (2001). Building a net work theory of social capital. In Lin, N., Cook, K. and Burt, R. S. (eds.), Social capital: Theory and research, New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Machiavelli, N. (1515). The Prince, Durham: Duke University Press, NC. Macrosson, W. D. K. and Hemphill, D. J. (2001). Machiavellianism in Beblin team roles, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19: Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M. and Thweatt, K. S. (1998). Aggressive communication traits and their relationships with Cognitive Flexibility Scale and the Communication Flexibility Scale, Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 13: McKenna, E. (2006). Business Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 4 th, edn., NY: Psychology Press. Mehra, A., Leonard, A. S. and Katerberg, R. (2003). Self-monitoring and social network in academia: The social capital of minority doctoral students, Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Seatle, WA. Mayer, J. (2001). Emotional intelligence and giftness, Roeper Review, 23: Mayer, J. D. and Salovey, P. (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications, New York, NY: Basic Books. McKenna, E. (2006). Business Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 4 th edn., NY: Psychology Press. Moss, J. (2005). Race effects on employee assessing political leadership: A review of Christie and Geis s (1970) Mach IV Measure of Machiavellianism, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11: Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work, Academy of Management Journal, 39: Pan, J., Zhou, X., and Zhou, X. (2010). The role of leadership between the employees and the organization: a bridge or a ravine? An empirical study from China. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 5: Reimers, J. M. and Barbuto, J. E. (2002). A frame exploring the effects of Machiavellian disposition on the relationship between motivation and influence Tactics, Journal of Leadership & organizational Studies, 9: Repachioli et al. (2003). Theory of mind, Machiavellianism, and social functioning theory in childhood. [Accessed 7 th of October, 2010, 12:00] Schaufeli et al. (2002). The measurement of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach, Journal of Happiness Studies, 3: Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. and Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices, Leadership Quarterly, 10:

7 Schaufeli, W. B. and Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25: Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W. and Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout and engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57: Seers, A. (1989). Team Member Exchange Quality: A new construct for Role Making Research, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 43: Sergin, C. and Abrahamson, L. Y. (1994). Negative reactions to depressive behaviour: A communication theories analysis, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103: Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behaviour, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4): Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearance, private realities, The psychology of self-monitoring, New York: Freeman. Snyder, M. and Simpson, J. A. (1984). Self-monitoring and dating relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: Turnley, W. H. and Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring role of self-monitoring in impression management, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: Watson, D. and Pennebaker, J. K. (1989). Health complains stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of negative affectivity, Psychological Review, 96: