Journal of Management - ResearchGate · Journal of Management ... Aaron Hill, Mary B. Mawritz and ... Oklahoma State University, William S. Spears School of Business, Department of

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273589127

Employee Machiavellianism to Unethical Behavior: The Role

of Abusive Supervision as a Trait Activator

Article in Journal of Management · February 2017

DOI: 10.1177/0149206314535434

CITATIONS

13

READS

1,529

4 authors, including:

Rebecca Greenbaum

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

33 PUBLICATIONS 1,734 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Aaron D. Hill

Oklahoma State University - Stillwater

29 PUBLICATIONS 536 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Mary Bardes Mawritz

Drexel University

24 PUBLICATIONS 1,232 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aaron D. Hill on 29 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273589127_Employee_Machiavellianism_to_Unethical_Behavior_The_Role_of_Abusive_Supervision_as_a_Trait_Activator?enrichId=rgreq-a0f76fe66d98afa0fcf2ba70660e2d80-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3MzU4OTEyNztBUzozNzgzMDEzMTYxMjQ2NzNAMTQ2NzIwNTQ3MDg1Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273589127_Employee_Machiavellianism_to_Unethical_Behavior_The_Role_of_Abusive_Supervision_as_a_Trait_Activator?enrichId=rgreq-a0f76fe66d98afa0fcf2ba70660e2d80-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3MzU4OTEyNztBUzozNzgzMDEzMTYxMjQ2NzNAMTQ2NzIwNTQ3MDg1Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-a0f76fe66d98afa0fcf2ba70660e2d80-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3MzU4OTEyNztBUzozNzgzMDEzMTYxMjQ2NzNAMTQ2NzIwNTQ3MDg1Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rebecca_Greenbaum2?enrichId=rgreq-a0f76fe66d98afa0fcf2ba70660e2d80-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3MzU4OTEyNztBUzozNzgzMDEzMTYxMjQ2NzNAMTQ2NzIwNTQ3MDg1Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf


https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Rutgers_The_State_University_of_New_Jersey?enrichId=rgreq-a0f76fe66d98afa0fcf2ba70660e2d80-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3MzU4OTEyNztBUzozNzgzMDEzMTYxMjQ2NzNAMTQ2NzIwNTQ3MDg1Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron_Hill2?enrichId=rgreq-a0f76fe66d98afa0fcf2ba70660e2d80-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3MzU4OTEyNztBUzozNzgzMDEzMTYxMjQ2NzNAMTQ2NzIwNTQ3MDg1Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf


https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Oklahoma_State_University-Stillwater?enrichId=rgreq-a0f76fe66d98afa0fcf2ba70660e2d80-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3MzU4OTEyNztBUzozNzgzMDEzMTYxMjQ2NzNAMTQ2NzIwNTQ3MDg1Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mary_Mawritz?enrichId=rgreq-a0f76fe66d98afa0fcf2ba70660e2d80-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3MzU4OTEyNztBUzozNzgzMDEzMTYxMjQ2NzNAMTQ2NzIwNTQ3MDg1Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf


https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Drexel_University?enrichId=rgreq-a0f76fe66d98afa0fcf2ba70660e2d80-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3MzU4OTEyNztBUzozNzgzMDEzMTYxMjQ2NzNAMTQ2NzIwNTQ3MDg1Mw%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf



http://jom.sagepub.com/Journal of Management

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/09/0149206314535434The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0149206314535434

published online 27 May 2014Journal of ManagementRebecca L. Greenbaum, Aaron Hill, Mary B. Mawritz and Matthew J. Quade

Supervision as a Trait ActivatorEmployee Machiavellianism to Unethical Behavior: The Role of Abusive

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- May 27, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

by guest on May 29, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on May 29, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jom.sagepub.com/

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/09/0149206314535434

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://southernmanagement.org

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/09/0149206314535434.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of ManagementVol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 1 –25

DOI: 10.1177/0149206314535434© The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1

Employee Machiavellianism to Unethical Behavior: The Role of Abusive Supervision as a

Trait Activator

Rebecca L. Greenbaum Aaron Hill

Oklahoma State University

Mary B. MawritzDrexel University

Matthew J. QuadeBaylor University

Drawing on trait activation theory, we examine a person-situation interactionist model to pre-dict unethical behavior in organizations. In particular, we examine abusive supervision as a condition under which employee Machiavellianism (Mach) is activated and thus more strongly predicts unethical behavior. We offer a more fine-grained analysis of the Mach–trait activation process by specifically examining the interactive effect of each Mach dimension (viz., Distrust in Others, Desire for Control, Desire for Status, and Amoral Manipulation) and abusive super-vision onto unethical behavior. We collected multisource field data to test our hypotheses across two studies. We then tested our theoretical model utilizing an experimental design. The results of our field studies indicate that the interaction of amoral manipulation and abusive supervision is the most predictive of unethical behavior, whereas our experimental findings indicate that the interaction of desire for control and abusive supervision is the primary predictor of unethical behavior. Implications for the Machiavellianism literature and trait activation theory are dis-cussed.

Keywords: Machiavellianism; abusive supervision; unethical behavior; social undermining

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the action editor for their helpful com-ments in developing this manuscript.

Corresponding author: Rebecca L. Greenbaum, Oklahoma State University, William S. Spears School of Business, Department of Management, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

535434 JOMXXX10.1177/0149206314535434Journal of Management / Month XXXXGreenbaum et al. / Machiavellianism and Abusive Supervisionresearch-article2014

by guest on May 29, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

mailto:[email protected]


2 Journal of Management / Month XXXX

Machiavellianism (Mach) is a personality trait that captures one’s tendency to “distrust others, engage in amoral manipulation, seek control over others, and seek status for oneself” (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009: 219). Recent enumerative and empirical reviews indicate that employees high in Mach are quite disruptive to the effective functioning of organizations (Dahling et al., 2009; Kessler, Bandelli, Spector, Borman, Nelson, & Penney, 2010; Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010; O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). For example, extant research has found that Mach employees are more likely to steal (Fehr, Samson, & Paulhus, 1992; Harrell & Hartnagel, 1976), are economically opportunistic, are less cooperative (Sakalaki, Richardson, & Thepaut, 2007), and have lower job satisfaction and higher turnover (Fehr et al., 1992; Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). Furthermore, recent meta-analyses demonstrate that employees high in Mach are likely to engage in unethical and counterproductive work behaviors (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2012).

Although research illustrates the troublesome effects of Mach employees (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2012), our understanding of Mach within organizations remains limited in that little attention has been given to conditions that activate a Mach employee’s innate tendencies to engage in unethical behavior (i.e., behavior that violates moral norms and is unacceptable to the larger community; Kaptein, 2008). The notion that Mach employ-ees are affected by contextual factors is consistent with Machiavelli’s original work The Prince (1513/1966), which states,

It will be well for him [one high in Mach] to seem, and, actually, to be merciful, faithful, humane, frank and religious. But he should preserve a disposition which will make a reversal of conduct possible in case the need arises. (p. 63)

Indeed, research on Mach in the workplace suggests that those high in Mach are not always deceitful and exploitive but instead disregard moral standards only when it is convenient and when engaging in such behavior is expected to result in personal gain (Dahling et al., 2009; Kessler et al., 2010).

We introduce trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) to the behavioral ethics literature in an effort to theoretically identify trait-relevant situational cues that activate the Mach–to–unethical behavior relationship. Notably, trait activation and related personality theories (e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1995) suggest that personality should be examined in terms of situation-behavior profiles. Situation-behavior profiles capture the unique way that personality-driven behaviors can vary across situations, such that if people with personality X are exposed to particular situational cues, then they are likely to respond in predictable ways. An application of trait activation theory within the behavioral ethics literature is useful because it provides a theoretical framework for identifying conditions that activate trait-expressive unethical behavior. Accordingly, organizations may be able to more effectively identify and control situations that are likely to activate traits commonly associ-ated with unethical behavior.

In accordance with trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), we identify abusive supervision as a specific social situation that triggers a Mach’s inclination to exhibit unethi-cal behaviors. The Mach literature suggests that powerful others who control rewards and punishments, such as those in leadership positions (Brown & Mitchell, 2010), may influence a Mach’s tendency to engage in unethical behavior (Prociuk & Breen, 1976; Sherry, Hewitt, Besser, Flett, & Klein, 2006). We argue, however, that a certain type of leader—the abusive



Greenbaum et al. / Machiavellianism and Abusive Supervision 3

supervisor—is going to be particularly influential in activating underlying Mach traits that encourage unethical behavior. We expect that abusive supervisors strengthen the relationship between Mach and unethical behaviors by giving off cues that activate a Mach employee’s distrust in others, amoral manipulation, and desires for control and status.

Theoretical Overview and Hypotheses

Machiavellianism and Unethical Behaviors

Recently, Machiavellianism has been conceptualized as having four underlying facets: distrust in others, desire for control, desire for status, and amoral manipulation (Dahling et al., 2009). The distrust in others component of Mach is defined as “a cynical outlook on the motivations and intentions of others with a concern for the negative implications that those intentions have for the self” (Dahling et al., 2009: 227). Those high in Mach tend to distrust others because they themselves have a tendency to manipulate others and therefore believe that others will try to manipulate them. Desire for control captures the “need to exercise dominance over interpersonal situations to minimize the extent to which others have power” (Dahling et al., 2009: 228). Because those high in Mach see others as threatening, they attempt to control and limit the power of others by being domineering in social settings. Machiavellian employees have a strong desire for status, which is defined as “a desire to accumulate external indicators of success” (Dahling et al., 2009: 228). They primarily see events as being externally controlled and thus pursue goals that are externally (e.g., goals that secure wealth, power, and status), rather than internally, fulfilling. Finally, amoral manipula-tion is “a willingness to disregard standards of morality and see value in behaviors that ben-efit the self at the expense of others” (Dahling et al., 2009: 228). We explore the relationship between the Mach facets and unethical behavior.

Mach employees’ high distrust in others encourages them to proactively take advantage of others—it is better to act first rather than wait to become the victim of manipulation. Additionally, Mach employees attempt to attain and secure high levels of power, status, and control by behaving in ways that benefit themselves but at the expense of others (Christie & Geis, 1970; Kessler et al., 2010; Sherry et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 1996). Thus, a Mach’s underlying traits may encourage stakeholder-directed unethical behaviors. Employees are generally expected to achieve a good return on investment for shareholders and are respon-sible for providing customers with high-quality products and services (Kaptein, 2008). Yet, employees high in Mach may undermine such stakeholders by engaging in behaviors that give the appearance of success that is actually unfounded (Kaptein, 2008). In an effort to appear powerful, successful, and in control, and as a result of their inherent distrust and amoral tendencies, a Mach employee may engage in unethical behavior by providing inac-curate information to analysts and investors, falsifying or manipulating financial reporting information, violating contract terms with customers, and breaching customer privacy. When the opportunity presents itself, a Mach’s underlying traits may also predict the overstatement of performance.

Similarly, employees high in Mach may behave unethically toward coworkers by engag-ing in social undermining, defined as “behavior that is intended to hinder, over time, the ability [of coworkers] to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships,




work-related success, and favorable reputations” (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002: 332). This behavior is a proactive, instrumental form of aggression that assists people in getting what they want (Duffy, Shaw, Scott, & Tepper, 2006). In fact, Duffy et al. (2006) note that employ-ees may engage in social undermining to enhance their standing within work groups. As such, Mach employees may try to assert status and control, and manage their distrust of oth-ers and vulnerability, by engaging in social undermining behaviors that allow them to hinder the success of coworkers and thus promote their own welfare. For example, those high in underlying Mach traits may delay the work of coworkers to make them look bad or slow them down or give coworkers misleading information about the job to put them at a disad-vantage. Overall, we predict that the underlying Mach facets predict unethical behavior, operationalized as stakeholder- and customer-directed unethical behavior, overstatement of performance, and social undermining towards coworkers.

Hypothesis 1: A Mach’s (a) distrust in others, (b) desire for control, (c) desire for status, and (d) amoral manipulation will be positively related to unethical behaviors.

An Application of Trait Activation Theory

Treviño (1986) called for a person-situation interactionist model for understanding behav-ioral ethics. Recently, Kish-Gephart et al. (2010) noted the limited number of studies that utilize person-situation interactionism in studying behavioral ethics. Whereas Treviño relied on cognitive moral development theory (Kohlberg, 1969) to support her model, trait activa-tion theory, a more general theory, may provide insights into understanding person-situation interactive models of (un)ethical behavior. Tett and Burnett’s (2003) trait activation theory is specific to job performance; however, the theory can be effective in predicting other, impor-tant work-related behavior, such as (un)ethical behavior. Furthermore, the theory is broad enough to apply to a range of personality traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003), which may ignite more systematic research on person-situation interactionism in predicting (un)ethical behavior.

Trait activation (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) and related personality theories (e.g., the cognitive-affective system theory of personality; Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998) argue that people are attentive to situations that activate psychological processes that underlie their personalities. In particular, the trait activation process occurs when the situa-tion is relevant to a person’s values, goals, and the way he or she wants to present himself or herself. The “press” of the situation then motivates the person to behave in accordance with his or her personality by engaging in trait-expressive work behaviors (Murray, 1938). Thus, a distinguishing feature of trait activation theory is the notion that personality traits, in con-junction with trait-relevant situational factors, can serve as a theoretical (and not just a descriptive) basis for predicting workplace behavior (Tett & Burnett, 2003). The theory pro-vides an organizing framework for identifying conditions that are likely to spark the trait activation process.

Tett and Burnett (2003: 502) note that “we see traits by what we see people do.” Their theory suggests that personality serves as a “latent potential” that resides within an individual until it is triggered, upon which it becomes evident in the demonstration of behaviors. Hence, situation-trait relevance, which exists when situational cues allow for the expression of one’s personality, is crucial to understanding the effects of personality within organizations. The




expression of one trait over another, via behavioral expression, must be considered in light of particular contexts. Doing so allows organizations to identify situational factors that activate trait-relevant behaviors (Mischel & Shoda, 1995), such as trait-expressive unethical behaviors.

Abusive Supervision as a Trait Activator

Trait activation theory provides a theoretical framework for identifying when Machs are more likely to act on their innate tendencies to behave unethically. The theory suggests that trait activation may occur because of social demands that stem from constituents, such as peers, subordinates, clients, and/or supervisors. Unfortunately, social demands are often overlooked as important conditions that influence trait-expressive behaviors (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Even though trait-relevant cues provided by social demands are not as concrete and manageable as task demands, they can be equally as important in predicting trait-expressive work behaviors.

By virtue of their hierarchical status, supervisors have the power and authority to influ-ence employees in desirable and undesirable ways (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005). Therefore, we argue that Mach employees are influenced by the social demands posed by supervisors. We suggest that the abusive supervisor, in particular, serves as a strong social influence that activates Mach traits, leading to trait expression in the form of unethical behavior.

A key aspect of trait activation theory is that the “press” of the situation encourages people to demonstrate trait-related behaviors (Murray, 1938). Situation-trait relevance exists when a particular context provides cues that are thematically related to one’s underlying traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Abusive supervision, defined as “the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical con-tact” (Tepper, 2000: 178), includes behaviors such as ridiculing subordinates, telling them their thoughts and feelings are stupid, and putting them down in front of others. Thus, abu-sive supervision can provide cues that are relevant to the core Mach traits.

First, abusive supervisors activate a Mach’s distrust in others. Mach employees are dis-trustful and cynical of human nature, believing that people’s manipulative behaviors will harm the Mach’s personal interests (Christie & Geis, 1970; Dahling et al., 2009). The abusive supervisor’s forceful and belligerent nature provides cues that the supervisor is taking advan-tage of his or her leadership role and is capable of further compromising a Mach’s best inter-ests. Because of the signaling effect that abusive supervision has on a Mach’s “distrust in others,” a Mach employee is expected to behave in trait-expressive ways that preserve his or her self-interested desires. Specifically, the distrust triggering effect of abusive supervision strengthens the Mach’s attempt to safeguard his or her success from the untrustworthy super-visor by engaging in unethical behaviors—behaviors that can provide the “appearance of success.”

Second, abusive supervision provides relevant cues that activate a Mach’s desire for con-trol, which then leads to trait-expressive unethical behaviors. Mach employees have strong desires for control and tend to feel threatened by powerful and socially domineering others (Dahling et al., 2009). Abusive supervisors serve as external, powerful threats that Machs cannot directly control. Supervisors who engage in aggressive and condescending behaviors toward subordinates send cues regarding their power and social dominance relative to




subordinates (Shao, Resick, & Hargis, 2011). In turn, Mach employees may feel their control is threatened and may respond to the perceived limits on their control by exercising power and dominance in other domains (Allen & Greenberger, 1980; Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002; Fisher & Baron, 1982; Taylor & Walton, 1971). Accordingly, abusive supervision triggers Mach employees to express their desire for control by engaging in unethical behaviors. For example, an abused Mach employee may exert control in other areas by falsifying or manipulating financial reporting information, violating contract terms with customers, or undermining coworkers’ success.

Third, abusive supervision triggers Mach employees to care more strongly about their innate desire for status, which may activate trait-expressive behaviors that presumably enhance status. Machs tend to focus on external indicators of success, such as the accumula-tion of wealth, power, and status. Abusive supervisors hinder employees’ status by making them feel stupid and putting them down (Tepper, 2000). A Mach employee’s deep desire to attain and secure “high status” will be activated by abusive-supervision cues that strip them of power and status. Hence, the “press” of the situation will lead to feelings of self-threat. People interpret situations as self-threatening (Mischel & Shoda, 1995) when the “situation or context is perceived as being significant enough to cause a change in how the self is con-ceptualized and regarded” (Besser & Priel, 2010: 879; see also Kelly, 1965). People respond to self-threats by attempting to reinstate their personal beliefs and expectancies about them-selves by engaging in trait-expressive behaviors (Mischel, 1973; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Thus, a Mach’s desire for status is in jeopardy under an abusive supervisor, activating a Mach to address the threat by engaging in trait-expressive unethical behaviors that serve to enhance wealth, power, and status.

Finally, abusive supervisors are likely to give off cues suggesting that employees can get away with having loose moral standards. Trait activation theory argues that people specifi-cally seek out others who afford them the opportunity to express their innate traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Indeed, the theory explains that an individual’s “ideal” work situation pro-vides cues for trait expression and values subsequent trait-expressive work behaviors. Extant research suggests that abusive supervision violates fundamental moral norms by infringing on the universally prescribed rights of others (Bies, 2001; Greenbaum, Mawritz, Mayer, & Priesemuth, 2013; Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Piccolo, 2012). The Mach employee, in particu-lar, is attentive to situational cues that endorse flexibility in moral standards for the purpose of personal gain (i.e., amoral manipulation). Therefore, the immoral behaviors of abusive supervisors (Brown & Mitchell, 2010) activate Mach employees to disregard moral stan-dards, via the triggering effect of amoral manipulation, which is evident by heightened levels of unethical behavior.

Taken together, we predict that abusive supervision effectively serves as a Mach “trait activator” by giving off cues that thematically align with each Mach facet—distrust in others, desire for control, desire for status, and amoral manipulation—thus further encouraging the expression of unethical behaviors. We specifically hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2: Abusive supervision will moderate the positive relationships between a Mach’s (a) distrust in others, (b) desire for control, (c) desire for status, and (d) amoral manipulation and unethical behavior such that these relationships will be stronger when abusive supervision is high as opposed to low.




Study 1

Method

Sample and Procedure

We administered surveys to focal employees and their supervisors via the Internet. Business administration students in upper-division management courses at a large university in the midwestern United States were used as organizational contacts in exchange for extra credit. Each organizational contact recruited a focal employee working at least 20 hours per week to fill out the focal employee survey. Focal employees then recruited their supervisors to fill out a supervisor survey. By using this approach to collect data, we were able to access a wide variety of organizations across many industries. Respondents had a variety of occupa-tions, including, but not limited to, carpenters, cooks, accountants, health care, customer service, and child care.

In line with other researchers who have used similar approaches to collecting data (e.g., Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), we took several steps to ensure that the correct sources filled out the surveys. First, we emphasized to the organizational contacts the importance of integrity and honesty in the data collection process. We also explained that the researchers would take steps to ensure the surveys were filled out by the correct sources (e.g., monitoring time stamps) and that a violation of academic integrity could result in cases where the integrity of the responses was in question.

Both the focal employee and supervisor surveys included demographic questions. The focal employee survey also included items to assess Machiavellianism and abusive supervi-sion. Supervisors assessed the stakeholder and customer unethical behaviors of the focal employee.

A total of 687 students had the opportunity to serve as organizational contacts. One hun-dred seventy-one (171) responses were gathered in which both the focal employee (n = 177) and supervisor (n = 171) completed surveys, for a response rate of 24.9%. Focal employee respondents were 63.2% female and 79.5% Caucasian. The focal employees had an average of 5.46 years (SD = 7.28) of organizational tenure and an average age of 30.02 years (SD = 11.88). Supervisor respondents were 41.5% female and 83.6% Caucasian. Supervisors had an average of 11.59 years (SD = 9.10) of organizational tenure and an average age of 41.77 years (SD = 11.63).

Measures

Machiavellianism. Focal employees assessed their Machiavellianism by rating the extent to which they agreed with items (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) from Dahling et al.’s (2009) measure: distrust in others (five items; α = .88), desire for control (three items; α = .81), desire for status (three items; α = .86), and amoral manipulation (five items; α = .93).

Abusive supervision. Focal employees assessed abusive supervision with the shortened five-item measure of abusive supervision (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000) using a 7-point response scale (1 = never to 7 = always; α = .92).




Unethical behaviors. Using Kaptein’s (2008) measure, supervisors rated the extent to which (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) focal employees engage in stakeholder (i.e., financial; 10 items) and customer (8 items) unethical behaviors. Due to the high cor-relation between these variables (r = .93, p < .001), we combined items into one unethical behavior measure (α = .98).

Results

The means, standard deviations, correlations, and measure reliabilities for Study 1 vari-ables are presented in Table 1. We tested our hypotheses using regression analyses and mean centered predictor and moderating variables (Aiken & West, 1991).

Hypothesis 1 predicted that a Mach’s (a) distrust in others, (b) desire for control, (c) desire for status, and (d) amoral manipulation are positively related to unethical behavior. An exam-ination of Table 2, Model 1, reveals that we found statistically significant support only for Hypothesis 1d; amoral manipulation is positively related to unethical behavior (B = .39, p < .001). An examination of Models 2 through 5 reveal that abusive supervision positively mod-erates the relationships between (a) distrust in others (B = .19, p < .01), (b) desire for control (B = .15, p < .05), and (d) amoral manipulation (B = .22, p < .01) and unethical behavior, but not (c) desire for status (B = .09, ns) and unethical behavior. Importantly, however, an exami-nation of the fully specified model (Model 5) demonstrates that the amoral manipulation and abusive supervision interactive effect is the only significant result when controlling for all interactions (B = .22, p < .01), thus providing support for Hypothesis 2d. We plotted the interaction at one standard deviation above and below the mean (see Figure 1). Simple slope tests revealed that amoral manipulation is more strongly related to unethical behavior when abusive supervision is high (t = 5.70, p < .001) versus low (t = 1.40, ns).

Study 2

To enhance the robustness of our Study 1 results, we examined whether our findings could be replicated in a second study (Singh, Ang, & Leong, 2003; Tsang & Kwan, 1999). To

Table 1

Study 1: Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Estimates, and Study Variable Intercorrelations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Distrust in others 3.17 1.38 (.88) 2. Desire for control 3.57 1.51 .45*** (.81) 3. Desire for status 4.10 1.56 .53*** .56*** (.86) 4. Amoral manipulation 1.88 1.26 .58*** .44*** .41*** (.93) 5. Abusive supervision 1.56 0.93 .27*** .10 .06 .30*** (.92) 6. Unethical behavior 1.43 1.02 .34*** .27*** .25*** .50*** .34*** (.98)

Note: n = 171. Cronbach’s alphas are shown in parentheses on the diagonal.*p ≤ .05.**p ≤ .01.***p ≤ .001.




Table 2

Study 1: Results for Regression Analyses on Overall Unethical Behavior

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Distrust in others 0.01 0.01 0.01 −0.00 0.04(0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09)

Desire for control 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)Desire for status 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.04 (0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.09) (0.09)Amoral manipulation 0.39*** 0.42*** 0.40*** 0.40*** 0.38*** (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)Abusive supervision (AS) 0.21** 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.08 (0.07) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)Distrust in Others × AS 0.19** 0.10 0.07 0.01 (0.06) (0.07) (0.09) (0.09)Desire for Control × AS 0.15* 0.12 0.04 (0.07) (0.09) (0.09)Desire for Status × AS 0.09 0.05 (0.12) (0.11)Amoral Manipulation × AS 0.22** (0.07)F 13.53*** 13.64*** 12.48*** 10.95*** 11.24***R2 0.29 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.39Change in R2 from previous model 0.04** 0.02* 0.00 0.04**

Note: n = 171. Standard errors in parentheses.*p ≤ .05.**p ≤ .01.***p ≤ .001.

Figure 1Study 1: The Moderating Effect of Abusive Supervision on the Relationship Between

Machiavellianism and Unethical Behavior

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Low High

Un

eth

ical

Beh

avio

r

Amoral Manipulation

Abusive Supervision

-1 SDMean+1 SD




overcome limitations associated with self-report measures of personality characteristics (Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011; Zimmerman, Triana, & Barrick 2010), we used observer ratings of the focal employees’ Mach. Extant research suggests the operational validity of observer rat-ings of personality is higher than self-report ratings of personality (see Oh et al., 2011, for a recent meta-analytic review). As such, we had coworker respondents rate the focal employ-ees’ Mach in Study 2. Having coworkers rate the focal employees’ Mach also addresses a potential limitation of Study 1 in that the predictor and moderator variables were rated by the same source (cf. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Furthermore, given that empirical support exists for the relationship between Mach and general forms of unethical behaviors (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2012), we also examined a different criterion variable that captures employee unethical behaviors toward coworkers (i.e., social undermining, rated by supervisors).

Method

Sample and Procedure

To collect data for Study 2, we followed the same steps outlined in Study 1. However, we had coworker respondents rate the focal employees’ Mach. We had supervisor respondents rate the focal employees’ social undermining behavior in addition to the focal employees’ unethical behaviors. All respondents (i.e., focal employees, coworkers, and supervisors) were asked demographic questions. A total of 447 business administration students had the opportunity to serve as organizational contacts, and 175 responses were gathered from matched focal (n = 291), coworker (n = 223), and supervisor (n = 236) triads (response rate = 39.1%).

Responses gathered from focal employees were obtained from respondents who were 57.1% female and 77.7% Caucasian. Focal employees had an average of 5.29 years (SD = 6.89) of organizational tenure and an average age of 30.13 years (SD = 12.83). Coworker respondents were 59.0% female and 77.0% Caucasian. Coworkers had an average of 4.44 years (SD = 5.81) of organizational tenure and an average age of 30.78 years (SD = 13.15). The supervisor respondents were 40.4% female and 77.6% Caucasian. Supervisors had an average of 11.67 years (SD = 9.56) of organizational tenure and an average age of 41.66 years (SD = 12.70).

Measures

Machiavellianism. Coworker respondents rated the focal employees’ Mach using the same measure used in Study 1: distrust in others (α = .88), desire for control (α = .89), desire for status (α = .85), and amoral manipulation (α = .93).

Abusive supervision. Focal employee respondents rated abusive supervision using the same measure as in Study 1 (α = .88).

Unethical behaviors. Supervisor respondents rated the focal employees’ stakeholder and customer unethical behavior using the same measures used in Study 1 (α = .97). Additionally, supervisor respondents rated the focal employees social undermining towards coworkers using Duffy et al.’s (2002) 13-item scale (α = .95).




Control variables. Tenure between employee and supervisor may affect the observance of Mach tendencies (Wilson et al., 1996); thus we controlled for tenure with supervisor.

Results

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities for our Study 2 variables are displayed in Table 3. Hypotheses were tested using regression analyses, and independent variables were centered prior to creating and testing interactions (Aiken & West, 1991).

Hypothesis 1 predicted that a Mach’s (a) distrust in others, (b) desire for control, (c) desire for status, and (d) amoral manipulation are positively related to unethical behavior. An exam-ination of Tables 4 and 5, Model 1, reveal that we found statistically significant support only for amoral manipulation onto unethical behavior (B = .30, p < .001) but not onto social under-mining (B = .12, ns), providing partial support for Hypothesis 1d. Interestingly, we also found statistically significant support for desire for control onto social undermining (B = .19, p < .01) but not onto unethical behavior (B = −.05, ns), providing partial support for Hypothesis 2b. An examination of Table 4, Models 2 through 5, reveals that abusive supervi-sion moderates the relationships between distrust in others (B = .14, p < .05) and amoral manipulation (B = .19, p < .01) onto unethical behavior, while an examination of Table 5, Models 2 through 5, reveals that abusive supervision moderates the relationship between amoral manipulation and social undermining (B = .20, p < .01). As with Study 1, an examina-tion of the fully specified models (Model 5), in Tables 4 and 5, demonstrate that the interac-tion between amoral manipulation and abusive supervision is the only significant interactive effect when controlling for all interactions (unethical behavior, B = .19, p < .01; social under-mining, B = .20, p < .01), providing support for Hypothesis 2d.

For our fully specified model (Model 5), we plotted the interaction of amoral manipula-tion and abusive supervision onto unethical behavior and social undermining at one standard deviation above and below the mean. The plotted interactions are consistent with Study 1 (see Figures 2 and 3). Simple slopes analyses reveal when abusive supervision is high, the

Table 3


Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Tenure with supervisor 3.19 3.87 2. Distrust in others 2.84 1.35 −.11 (.88) 3. Desire for control 3.26 1.78 −.04 .44*** (.89) 4. Desire for status 4.31 1.53 −.03 .44*** .36*** (.85) 5. Amoral manipulation 1.79 1.36 −.11 .57*** .52*** .33*** (.93) 6. Abusive supervision 1.35 0.71 .02 .24** .20** .16* .20** (.88) 7. Unethical behavior 1.35 0.78 −.09 .35*** .20** .11 .44*** .24** (.97) 8. Social undermining 1.59 0.84 .11 .25*** .32*** .05 .29*** .17* .47*** (.95)

Note: n = 175. Cronbach’s alphas are shown in parentheses on the diagonal.*p ≤ .05.**p ≤ .01.***p ≤ .001.




relationship between amoral manipulation and unethical behavior (t = 5.24, p < .001) and social undermining (t = 2.39, p < .05) are stronger than when abusive supervision is low (unethical behavior, t = 0.68, ns; social undermining, t = −1.24, ns).

Study 3

We conducted Study 3 in an effort to test trait activation theory in a laboratory setting. Past research has relied on trait activation theory to explain theoretical models without attempting to test the theory (e.g., Liu, Liu, & Wu, 2010; Van Iddekinge, McFarland, & Raymark, 2007). An exception is research conducted by Tett and Guterman (2000); however, their study was based on a scenario-based experimental design that examined behavioral intentions, rather than behaviors, as the dependent variable. Thus, we contribute to the trait activation theory literature by demonstrating a potential means by which trait activation can be tested in the lab with a behavioral outcome. In particular, we adapted an experimental design used by Schweitzer, Ordoñez, and Douma (2004; see also Gino & Margolis, 2011; Gino & Pierce, 2009) to capture

Table 4

Study 2: Results for Regression Analyses on Overall Unethical Behavior


Tenure with supervisor −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 −0.00 −0.00 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)Distrust in others 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14* (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07)Desire for control −0.05 −0.03 −0.03 −0.03 −0.04 (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)Desire for status −0.07 −0.06 −0.06 −0.07 −0.06 (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)Amoral manipulation 0.30*** 0.30*** 0.30*** 0.29*** 0.24*** (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07)Abusive supervision (AS) 0.14* 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.07 (0.06) (0.07) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)Distrust in Others × AS 0.14* 0.14* 0.20** 0.09 (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08)Desire for Control × AS 0.01 0.05 −0.08 (0.07) (0.07) (0.08)Desire for Status × AS −0.15 −0.09 (0.09) (0.09)Amoral Manipulation × AS 0.19** (0.06)F 8.99*** 8.56*** 7.45*** 7.05*** 7.55***R2 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.32Change in R2 from previous model 0.02* 0.00 0.02 0.04**





Table 5

Study 2: Results for Regression Analyses on Social Undermining


Tenure with supervisor 0.03* 0.03* 0.03* 0.04* 0.04* (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)Distrust in others 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.15† (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)Desire for control 0.19** 0.20** 0.21** 0.22** 0.21** (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07)Desire for status −0.12 −0.12 −0.11 −0.12 −0.11 (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07)Amoral manipulation 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.04 (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)Abusive supervision (AS) 0.08 0.02 −0.06 −0.04 −0.03 (0.07) (0.08) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09)Distrust in Others × AS 0.09 0.11 0.17* 0.06 (0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.09)Desire for Control × AS 0.15 0.18* 0.05 (0.08) (0.08) (0.09)Desire for Status × AS −0.16 −0.10 (0.10) (0.10)Amoral Manipulation × AS 0.20** (0.07)F 5.80*** 5.19*** 5.05*** 4.84*** 5.25***R2 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.24Change in R2 from previous model 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03**



Machiavellianism and Unethical Behavior

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Low High

Un

eth

ical

Beh

avio

r

Amoral Manipulation

Abusive Supervision

-1 SDMean+1 SD




the relationship between trait activation and unethical behavior. Schweitzer et al. asked partici-pants to complete a series of anagram tasks. At the end of the rounds, participants graded their own work, which provided them with the opportunity to cheat by overstating performance.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and three people participated in the study. The participants were undergradu-ate business students at a midwestern university in the United States. Because students may have been interested in participating in the anagram tasks only to earn money, we included an attention check item midway through the survey portion of the experiment, which occurred after the anagram task. Twenty-four participants did not respond to the attention check item and thus were eliminated from further analyses. Additionally, 5 participants were dropped from the analyses because they earned perfect scores on every round of the anagram tasks and therefore were not afforded the opportunity to overstate performance. We also eliminated 21 participants because they indicated that they could not think of a situation that matched the manipulation, or their written description did not match the manipulation. Finally, one case was dropped due to a missing anagram task, and another case was dropped due to a missing score sheet (creating missing data), bringing the number of valid participants to 151 (64% male; Mage = 22, SD age = 2.34). Our exclusion criteria are consistent with past experimental research designs whereby (a) failure on manipulation checks, (b) incomplete or incorrect manipulations (e.g., writing nothing), and (c) outliers are excluded from analyses (Inesi, Gru-enfeld, & Galinsky, 2012; McClelland, 2000; Wang, Ku, Tai, & Galinsky, in press).

Design and Procedure

The study was conducted in multiple classrooms over the period of 1 week. Participants were recruited to participate via an e-mail announcement. Upon entering the classroom, the


Machiavellianism and Social Undermining

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Low High

Soc

ial U

nd

erm

inin

g

Amoral Manipulation

Abusive Supervision

-1 SDMean+1 SD




students were randomly assigned to either the neutral or the abusive condition by receiving participant packets. The packets included (a) anagram tasks, (b) a short survey, (c) an ana-gram-grading sheet, and (d) an envelope of money with 18 $1 bills. Unbeknownst to the participants, each of these items included a unique numerical identifier that could be used to match the material after completion. Participants also received a blue pen.

The participants were told that the researchers were interested in understanding how time pressure affects task performance. The researchers then explained that the participants would have the opportunity to first participate in a practice-round anagram task, followed by six competitive rounds. Each round would have a 90-second time limit. The participants were given the goal of creating at least nine words per round. All students who were recruited were told they would receive $2 for participating in the experiment (paid directly by the experi-menter). An additional $3 per round could be earned by meeting the nine-word goal (for a total of $18). Therefore, the maximum potential payout for participating was $20.

For the anagram tasks, the participants were provided seven letters to unscramble and to produce as many valid words as possible. Consistent with past research (e.g., Gino & Pierce, 2009; Schweitzer et al., 2004), the participants were given the following rules: (a) All words must be English words, (b) a word must be at least two or more letters long, (c) you may not use proper nouns (e.g., Ed, Texas, Sue), (d) you cannot use both the singular and plural forms of a word (e.g., dog, dogs), and (e) each of the seven letters can be used only once per word.

The participants were told that after the anagram tasks, they would be given a short break before grading their work. They were then asked to participate in a short, unrelated survey. The short survey included the Mach personality scale, the abusive supervision manipulation, and a manipulation check. Upon completion, the participants were told to drop the survey into the “survey box” and to switch their blue pen for a black pen for the purposes of grading their anagram tasks. They were also given Scrabble© dictionaries to grade their work. The participants returned to their seats to record their performance on the anagram tasks and pay themselves from their envelopes. Performance grading sheets and remaining money were placed in the envelopes and sealed. The performance grading sheets also included demo-graphic questions. Participants were told to drop the anagram tasks into a recycling bin and to turn in their envelopes and all materials to the researchers. The participants then received the $2 participation fee and recorded their total payout for the purposes of maintaining finan-cial records. For accounting purposes, participants were required to initial their total payout. To ensure anonymity, participants were given the option of using fictitious initials. No signa-tures were ever recorded.

Experimental Manipulations

We manipulated abusive supervision by asking participants to ruminate and write about a past abusive authority figure. The participants were given the following instructions:

Please think of a situation in the past where you interacted with an abusive authority figure. Abusive authority figures typically engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact. Abusive authority figures may ridicule others, tell others that their thoughts or feelings are stupid, put people down in front of others, make negative comments about people to others, and tell others that they are incompetent.




Please take a few minutes to think of a specific situation where an abusive authority figure engaged in nonphysical abusive behaviors toward you. Please describe the situation below. Make it clear why you believe this authority figure’s behavior was abusive.

Based on prior rumination research (Rusting & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998), we created a con-trol condition whereby participants were asked to think of and write about a situation where “nothing out of the ordinary happened.” Participants were given the following instructions:

Please think of a situation in the past where you interacted with another person and nothing out of the ordinary happened and you felt relatively neutral. Please take a few minutes to think about this interaction. Please describe the specific situation below. Make it clear why you believe your interaction with this person was nothing out of the ordinary and why you felt relatively neutral.

We should note that we did not ask participants in the control condition to ruminate about a neutral “authority figure,” because those in positions of authority, generally speaking, may still be threatening to a high Mach (Dahling et al., 2009).

Measures

Manipulation check. Participants responded to an adapted version of the abusive supervision scale used in Studies 1 and 2 (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Participants read the following: “For the particular situation you described, please indicate how strongly you agree that the person involved engaged in the following behaviors,” with “ridiculed others” as a sample item (α = .97).

Machiavellianism. Participants rated their own Mach using the same scale as was used in Studies 1 and 2 (Dahling et al., 2009): distrust in others (α = .74), desire for control (α = .79), desire for status (α = .81), and amoral manipulation (α = .87).

Unethical behavior. Unethical behavior was captured by taking the average number of words overstated across the six competitive rounds of the anagram task. After the experiment was completed, two of the researchers retrieved the anagram tasks from the recycling bins and independently graded the participants’ true scores. The first author then cross-checked the grad-ing and subtracted the true score from the participants’ recorded scores. The total number of overstated words was then averaged across the six rounds to represent an average “overstate-ment score.” For example, if a participant recorded a score of 14 words across all six rounds, but his or her true score was only 10, then the participant’s average overstatement score was .67.

Control. Our data were collected in 12 different classes across two different semesters. To account for potential class effects, we included class as a control in our analyses.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

The descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities among Study 3 variables appear in Table 6. Hypotheses were tested using regression analyses, and the Mach facets were cen-tered prior to creating and testing interactions (Aiken & West, 1991).




Manipulation Check

We tested our manipulations using a one-way ANOVA. Results revealed that the abusive supervision manipulation was successful, F(1, 149) = 109.79, p < .001. Participants in the abu-sive supervision condition reported higher levels of abuse (n = 71, M = 5.05, SD= 1.67) than participants in the neutral condition (n = 80, M = 2.29, SD = 1.56).

Hypothesis Tests

Hypothesis 1 predicted that (a) distrust in others, (b) desire for control, (c) desire for sta-tus, and (d) amoral manipulation will be positively related to unethical behavior. We did not find direct support for Hypothesis 1 (see Table 7, Model 1). Hypothesis 2 predicted that abu-sive supervision would moderate the relationships between (a) distrust in others, (b) desire for control, (c) desire for status, and (d) amoral manipulation and unethical behavior. An examina-tion of Table 7, Models 2 through 5, reveals that only the interaction of desire for control and abusive supervision had a statistically significant relationship with unethical behavior (B = .18, p < .05), demonstrating support for Hypothesis 2b. As shown in Figure 4, those high in desire for control who were also in the abuse condition were more likely to overstate performance than those in the neutral condition (in line with our prediction). Interestingly, we found an unexpected pattern of results for those with low desire for control. Participants low in desire for control and in the neutral condition overstated performance more than those low in desire for control and in the abuse condition. We speculate about this finding in the Discussion.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

The behavioral ethics literature has long acknowledged that (un)ethical behavior within organizations is a function of both people and situations (Treviño, 1986); yet, this literature lacks an overarching theory to help identify conditions that influence the relationship

Table 6


Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Class 8.19 3.52 2. Distrust in others 3.43 1.07 −.10 (.74) 3. Desire for control 4.71 1.11 −.03 .20* (.79) 4. Desire for status 4.81 1.32 .05 .21** .38*** (.81) 5. Amoral manipulation 1.92 3.42 −.00 .43*** .21** .25** (.87) 6. Abuse 0.47 0.84 .01 .04 −.02 −.01 .13 7. Unethical behavior 0.42 0.54 −.08 .06 −.09 −.06 .05 −.02

Note: n = 151. Cronbach’s alphas are shown in parentheses on the diagonal.* p ≤ .05.** p ≤ .01.*** p ≤ .001.




between personality and unethical behavior. Given that recent meta-analyses have con-cluded that people with certain individual differences are more likely to behave unethically (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2012), it is important to provide a theoretical perspective to help scholars pinpoint conditions that alter a person’s innate tendency to engage in (un)ethical behavior.

We argued that trait activation theory can help explain unethical behavior in organiza-tions. The theory proposes that the role of personality in predicting behavioral outcomes needs to be understood within the context of situations (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). A firm understanding of “unethical” personality types (see Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2002) should indicate the type of situational cues that are relevant enough to activate trait-expressive unethical behaviors. Our research takes an important step toward understanding “unethical” personality traits in conjunction with trait-relevant situa-tions. Our results indicate that abusive supervision may serve as a situational factor that activates a Mach’s amoral manipulation and desire for control in predicting unethical behavior.

Table 7

Study 3: Results for Regression Analyses on Unethical Behavior


Class −0.01 −0.01 −0.02 −0.02 −0.02 (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01)Distrust in others 0.03 −0.02 −0.00 −0.01 0.01 (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.07)Desire for control −0.05 −0.05 −0.12* −0.12* −0.12* (0.04) (0.04) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)Desire for status −0.02 −0.02 −0.02 −0.00 −0.00 (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05)Amoral manipulation 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 −0.02 (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.07)Abuse −0.03 −0.04 −0.03 −0.03 −0.03 (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09)Distrust in Others × Abuse 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.05 (0.08) (0.08) (0.09) (0.09)Desire for Control × Abuse 0.17* 0.18* 0.18* (0.08) (0.09) (0.09)Desire for Status × Abuse −0.03 −0.04 (0.07) (0.08)Amoral Manipulation × Abuse 0.07 (0.09)F 0.63 0.75 1.19 1.07 1.03R2 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.07Change in R2 from previous model 0.01 0.02* 0.00 0.01





Interestingly, Kish-Gephart et al. (2010) identified “self-interest” and “self-gain” as a common theme among personality traits that are normally associated with unethical behav-ior. Although all of the Mach facets represent an overarching theme of self-interest, amoral manipulation and desire for control are arguably the most self-interested facets of Mach personality. Indeed, the items from the Mach scale (Dahling et al., 2009) used to assess these two facets reflect more self-interest than those used to assess desire for status and distrust of others. A specific amoral manipulation item states, “I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed,” and a desire for control item states, “I enjoy being able to control the situation.” Thus, our overall findings from our field studies and our laboratory study indicate that abusive supervision may be particularly relevant in activating a Mach’s self-interested desires, as captured by amoral manipulation and desire for control, which then results in trait-expressive unethical behaviors—behaviors that fulfill desires for personal gain but sometimes at the expense of others. Moving forward, trait activation theory may be useful in identifying other relevant conditions that activate self-interest/self-gain personality traits, which can lead to a better understanding of the relationship between unethical tenden-cies and unethical behaviors.

We also contribute to the literature by testing trait activation theory with a laboratory experiment. Although a number of studies have relied on trait activation theory to explain theoretical models (e.g., Liu et al., 2010; Van Iddekinge et al., 2007), to our knowledge, these studies have not specifically tested trait activation theory. Tett and Guterman (2000) is the only exception; their study examined trait activation theory using a scenario-based experi-mental design with behavioral intentions as the outcome variable of interest. We attempted to improve upon Tett and Guterman’s research by manipulating trait activation via a rumina-tion/writing technique, an approach that is often used in the social psychology literature (e.g.,

Figure 4Study 3: The Moderating Effect of Ruminating About Abuse Versus Neutral

Condition on the Relationship Between Desire for Control and Unethical Behavior

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Low High

Un

eth

ical

Beh

avio

r

Desire for Control

Neutral

Abusive




Rusting & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998). In addition, we examined an actual behavioral outcome, namely, participants’ overstatement of their performance (i.e., our operationalization of unethical behavior). We believe our study design will be helpful to future research that seeks to test trait activation theory in relation to unethical behavior.

We contribute to the Mach literature in multiple ways. Mach research suggests that Machs behave unethically only under certain conditions (Kessler et al., 2010; Sherry et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 1996). Our research indicates that abusive supervision may provide cues that activate Machs to engage in trait-expressive unethical behaviors. Importantly, however, a Mach’s amoral manipulation, in conjunction with abusive supervision, was the strongest predictor of unethical behavior in our field studies, while a Mach’s desire for control coupled with abuse was the primary predictor of unethical behavior in our laboratory study. Although extant research identifies Mach as a higher-order construct (Christie & Geis, 1970; Dahling et al., 2009), our findings suggest there is value in examining the influence of the individual Mach facets, especially when testing trait activation theory in relation to unethical behaviors.

In this vein, our inconsistent results between our field studies and our laboratory experi-ment may have important implications for the Machiavellianism literature and trait activa-tion theory. First, the differences in our findings may be due to our examination of trait activation in the field versus the laboratory, which could indicate inconsistencies in the acti-vation of each Mach facet. Perhaps the activation of amoral manipulation operates differently than the activation of desire for control. It could be that an employee’s high amoral manipula-tion is activated only if the employee is exposed to abusive supervision multiple times. Multiple instances of abuse may allow the employee to conclude that the supervisor does indeed have loose moral standards. Later instances of abuse may remind the employee of the supervisor’s moral standards, which may then activate the employee’s equally questionable moral tendencies.

On the other hand, even one occurrence of abuse could prompt a Mach’s desire to reassert control. As our experimental study demonstrates, participants high in desire for control who ruminated about an abusive condition (versus a neutral condition) were more likely to cheat, presumably in an effort to dominate the situation in a way that benefited themselves. Yet, those high in amoral manipulation may not have experienced trait activation because the abusive event they ruminated about may not have occurred frequently enough to activate their amoral traits. It should also be noted that although the desire for control–abusive super-vision interactive effect was not always significant in our field studies, it was significant beyond the main effects in Study 1 and it approached significance (p < .10) in explaining social undermining in Study 2. Although both Study 1 and Study 2 reveal that the amoral manipulation–abusive supervision interactive effects explain more variance in unethical behavior and social undermining than the desire for control–abusive supervision interactive effects, this does not diminish the importance of desire for control. In the absence of amoral manipulation, desire for control may interact with situational factors to explain unethical behavior, as occurred with abusive supervision in Study 3.

We also suggest the differences in our findings across our field and laboratory studies may be due to differences in the operationalizations of unethical behavior used. Across two field studies, our results revealed consistent findings for the interactive effects of amoral manipu-lation and abusive supervision on unethical behavior and social undermining. However, an examination of the main effects revealed that amoral manipulation was positively related to




stakeholder and customer unethical behavior, while desire for control was positively related to social undermining. Then, in our laboratory study, we found that only the desire for con-trol–abusive supervision interaction was significantly related to cheating. Our three opera-tionalizations of unethical behavior represent different forms of unethical behavior (i.e., directed toward stakeholders, customers, coworkers, or the individual’s own profitability). Therefore, perhaps, our differing findings indicate that each Mach facet drives different forms of unethical behavior.

We should note the unexpected results produced in Study 3 for the Mach desire-for-con-trol facet. The plotted graph reveals that participants with low desire for control who were in the neutral condition engaged in higher levels of unethical behavior. Our theoretical predic-tions were based on the activating effect of abusive supervision on high Machs’ expression of unethical behavior. Thus, we did not have strong theoretical insights concerning those low in desire for control. We speculate, however, that low desire for control may correlate with other “control-related” personality characteristics, such as external locus of control or low conscientiousness, which have been found to be associated with unethical and deviant behav-ior (Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Eissa, 2012; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). It could be that thoughts of an authority figure (as in the abuse condition) grounds those with low control, leading to less unethical behavior, whereas the neutral condition affords them the freedom to behave recklessly.

Our results point to the importance of studying the individual Mach facets instead of the higher-order Mach construct. An analysis of the individual Mach dimensions, as “latent potentials” that reside within an individual until activated (Tett & Burnett, 2003), may allow Mach researchers to better identify situational cues that spark specific Mach traits to lead to various forms of trait-expressive unethical behaviors. Studying facets of Mach personality is consistent with recent calls to examine discrete personality traits (Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford, 2013). Indeed, Judge et al. (2013) demonstrated that Big Five personal-ity facets have better predictive validity than overall Big Five measures.

Practical Implications

Inevitably, employees vary in terms of their innate behavioral tendencies. Yet, social demands, such as leadership, may play an important role in activating or suppressing both desirable and undesirable trait-expressive behaviors. Organizations should be aware that various social demands (e.g., leaders, peers, clients, subordinates) play an important role in bringing out the best and worst in employees. In particular, our findings indicate that organi-zations should be aware that some employees are more sensitive to a leader’s abusive super-vision than others. Although abuse alone is undesirable and should be avoided, some employees may find abusive behavior extremely threatening to their core personality traits, creating strong negative reactions.

Contextual factors may play an important role in the activation of trait-relevant behaviors (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Organizations may benefit from identifying contexts that give rise to situation-trait relevance. If an organization desires strong job performance, for example, a systematic examination of conditions that activate particular personalities to perform opti-mally may help in achieving desired outcomes. If an organization wishes to avoid unethical behavior, there may be value in identifying situational cues that activate trait-expressive unethical behavior. Our research indicates that organizations attempting to curb unethical




behavior may want to avoid situations that provide cues for self-gain, as personality traits usually associated with unethical behavior appear to have a “self-interested” theme (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010).

Limitations and Future Directions

A potential limitation of our research is that our Study 1 and Study 2 data are cross-sec-tional in nature. Yet, our research utilizes a multimethod approach by experimentally testing our theoretical model in Study 3. Even so, future research would benefit from longitudinal studies that further support the causal direction of our predictions. For example, Dahling et al. (2009) noted that while there is typically a positive relationship between Mach and unfa-vorable outcomes, high levels of Mach could also be beneficial to organizations at times. Individuals higher in Mach may create favorable outcomes for their organizations (e.g., higher performance) by being more socially effective because of their superior political skills, their higher self-monitoring, and/or their natural competitiveness compared to those lower in Mach. Longitudinal research may help to understand the net impact of Machs by measuring both positive and negative outcomes over time. Longitudinally, it may be interest-ing to see if Machs are particularly effective in the short term but not in the long term. Perhaps a Mach’s innate competitiveness leads to more sales revenue in the short run, but his or her distrusting, controlling, and immoral nature makes it difficult to gain repeat customers in the long run.

In addition, when conducting Studies 1 and 2, we emphasized the importance of honesty and integrity in the scientific process (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Such phrasing may have primed students, as organizational contacts, to select participants based on ethicality. This may have created a selection bias in which the students chose focal employees who were lower in Mach (i.e., more ethical). However, we should note that the means for Mach in Studies 1 and 2 are in line with those reported in extant research (e.g., Belschak, Den Hartog, & Kalshoven, 2013; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012), suggesting that a selection bias was not an issue.

Finally, although Study 3 demonstrated that ruminating about an abusive supervisor encourages those high in desire for control to engage in unethical behavior, we have no way of knowing if abusive supervision specifically triggered concerns regarding “lack of con-trol.” Similarly, Studies 1 and 2 are limited in that we are unable to isolate whether exposure to abusive supervision prompts a Mach’s underlying amoral manipulation, thus leading to trait-expressive unethical behavior. Hence, a limitation of our research is that we fail to examine the accessibility of trait-like states after exposure to trait-activating situations. To capture such mediators, future research may improve our Study 3 by requesting that partici-pants include more detail when describing the manipulation. Such information could then be content analyzed to see if participants are more likely to refer to factors that reflect aspects of their underlying personality in their descriptions. For example, a person high in desire for control may appear more anxious or domineering in his or her description of an abusive supervisor. Unfortunately, the descriptions we received from participants were too brief to draw firm conclusions from our content analysis. In light of the disparate findings of our research, we hope future research will continue to explore trait activation theory using mul-tiple research designs that may be helpful in generating further confidence in the utility of trait activation theory.




Future research should examine alternative theoretical explanations for the interactive effect of Mach and abusive supervision onto unethical behavior. Rather than abusive supervi-sors “activating” Machs to express trait-relevant unethical behavior, it could be that Machs are more likely to reveal their unethical behaviors to abusive supervisors. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) may also provide alternative explanations to support moderators of the Mach–to–unethical behavior relationship. It may be that, via role modeling, a supervi-sor’s engagement in unethical behavior serves as an example for Machs to also behave uneth-ically. However, a role-modeling perspective is arguably more applicable to all employees rather than to Machs specifically. Hence, we argue trait activation theory provides a stronger theoretical explanation for our model. Even so, future research would benefit from examin-ing alternative explanations.

Conclusion

Over two decades ago, Treviño (1986) proposed that occurrences of unethical behavior within organizations are dependent on both people and situations; however, research that examines the interactive effects of personality and situational factors on unethical behavior remains sparse (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). We attempted to advance theory in this area by applying trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) to the person-situation interactionist model of behavioral ethics (Treviño, 1986). We argued that the “press” of the situation, via trait-relevant situational cues, activates trait-expressive unethical behav-iors. We illustrate this point by examining the moderating role of abusive supervision on the relationship between employee Mach facets and unethical behaviors.

ReferencesAiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.Allen, V. L., & Greenberger, D. B. 1980. Destruction and perceived control. In A. Braun & J. E. Singer (Eds.),

Advances in environmental psychology, vol. 2: 85-109. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. 2002. Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational

justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89: 947-965.Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Kalshoven, K. 2013. Leading Machiavellians: How to translate

Machiavellians’ selfishness into pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Management. Advance online publi-cation. doi:10.1177/0149206313484513

Besser, A., & Priel, B. 2010. Grandiose narcissism versus vulnerable narcissism in threatening situations: Emotional reactions to achievement failure and interpersonal rejection. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 29: 874-902.

Bies, R. J. 2001. Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice: 89-118. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. 2010. Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20: 583-616.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97: 117-134.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. 1970. Studies in Machiavellianism. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. 2009. The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism

Scale. Journal of Management, 35: 219-257.Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. 2012. Work engagement and Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership pro-

cess. Journal of Business Ethics, 107: 35-47.




Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 331-351.

Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., Scott, K. L., & Tepper, B. J. 2006. The moderating roles of self-esteem and neuroticism in the relationship between group and individual undermining behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1066-1077.

Fehr, B., Samson, D., & Paulhus, D. L. 1992. The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In C. Spielberger, & J. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment: 77-116. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fisher, J. D., & Baron, R. M. 1982. An equity-based model of vandalism. Population and Environment, 5: 182-200.Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. 2011. Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence

(Un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115: 145-156.Gino, F., & Pierce, L. 2009. The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109: 142-155.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, 342-359.

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., & Priesemuth, M. 2013. To act out, to withdraw, or to construc-tively resist? Employee reactions to supervisor abuse of customers. Human Relations, 66: 925-950.

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawrtiz, M. B., & Piccolo, R. F. 2012. When leaders fail to “walk the talk”: Supervisor undermining and perceptions of leader hypocrisy. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206312442386

Harrell, W. A., & Hartnagel, T. 1976. The impact of Machiavellianism and the trustfulness of the victim on labora-tory theft. Sociometry, 39: 157-165.

Inesi, M. E., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Galinsky, A. D. 2012. How power corrupts relationships: Cynical attributions for others’ generous acts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48: 795-803.

Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. 2013. Hierarchical presentations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 875-925.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. 2006. Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 126-138.

Kaptein, M. 2008. Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management, 34: 978-1008.

Kelly, G. A. 1965. Suicide: The personal construct point of view. In N. L. Farberow & E. S. Shneidman (Eds.), The cry for help: 255-280. Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill.

Kessler, S. R., Bandelli, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., Nelson, C. E., & Penney, L. M. 2010. Re-examining Machiavelli: A three-dimensional model of Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40: 1868-1896.

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: 1-31.

Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory: 347-380. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 131-142.

Liu, Y., Liu, J., & Wu, L. 2010. Are you willing and able? Roles of motivation, power, and politics in career growth. Journal of Management, 36: 1432-1460.

Machiavelli, N. 1966. The prince. New York: Bantam. (Original work published 1513)McClelland, G. H. 2000. Nasty data: Unruly, ill-mannered observations can ruin your analysis. In H. T. Reis, & C.

M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology: 393-411. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mischel, W. 1973. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80: 252-283.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102: 246–268.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. 1998. Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49: 229-258.




Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1159-1168.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1321-1339.

Murray, H. A. 1938. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.O’Boyle Jr., E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G., & McDaniel, M. A. 2012. A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work

outcomes: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 557-579.Oh, I. S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. 2011. Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 762-773.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: 879-903.

Prociuk, T. J., & Breen, L. J. 1976. Machiavellianism and locus of control. Journal of Social Psychology, 98: 141-142.

Rusting, C. L., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. 1998. Regulating responses to anger: Effects of rumination and distraction on angry mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 790-803.

Sakalaki, M., Richardson, C., & Thepaut, Y. 2007. Machiavellianism and economic opportunism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37: 1181-1190.

Schweitzer, M., Ordóñez, L., & Douma, B. 2004. Goal-setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 422-433.

Shao, P., Resick, C. J., & Hargis, M. B. 2011. Helping and harming others in the workplace: The roles of personal values. Human Relations, 64: 1051-1078.

Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Besser, A., Flett, G. L., & Klein, C. 2006. Machiavellianism, trait perfectionism, and perfectionistic self-presentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 40: 829-839.

Singh, K., Ang, S. H., & Leong, S. M. 2003. Increasing replication for knowledge accumulation in strategy research. Journal of Management, 29: 533-549.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interac-tional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 434-443.

Taylor, L., & Walton, P. 1971. Industrial sabotage: Motives and meanings. In S. Cohen (Ed.), Images of Deviance: 219-245. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178-190.Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88: 500-517.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: 397-423.Treviño, L. K. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. The Academy

of Management Review, 11: 601-617.Tsang, E. W. K., & Kwan, K. M. 1999. Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical

realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24: 759-780.Van Iddekinge, C. H., McFarland, L. A., & Raymark, P. H. 2007. Antecedents of impression management use and

effectiveness in a structured interview? Journal of Management, 33: 752-773.Wang, C. S., Ku, G., Tai, K., & Galinsky, A. D. in press. Stupid doctors and smart construction workers: Perspective-

taking reduces stereotyping of both negative and positive targets. Social Psychological and Personality Science.Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. 1996. Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological

literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 285-299.Zimmerman, R. D., Triana, M. C., & Barrick, M. 2010. Predictive criterion-related validity of observer ratings

of personality and job-related competencies using multiple raters and multiple performance criteria. Human Performance, 23: 361-378.


View publication statsView publication stats


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273589127

Journal of Management - ResearchGate · Journal of Management ... Aaron Hill, Mary B. Mawritz and ... Oklahoma State University, William S. Spears School of Business, Department of

Documents