5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
1/29
Re-Examining Machiavelli: A Three-Dimensional Model of
Machiavellianism in the Workplace
SR. K1
Montclair State UniversityAC. B
RHR International Company
PE. S,
WC. B,
CE. N
University of South Florida
L M. P
University of Houston
Machiavellianism has been studied extensively over the past 40 years as a
personality characteristic that shares features with the manipulative leadershiptactics Machiavelli advocated in The Prince. We introduce a new model of
Machiavellianism based in organizational settings that is multidimensional, incor-
porating aspects not previously included in Machiavellianism scales. Our model
consists of 3 factors: maintaining power, harsh management tactics, and manipu-
lative behaviors. The results of 3 studies are summarized, discussing the develop-
ment of these 3 factors and how they relate to individual-difference and
organizational variables.jasp_643 1868..1896
Behavioral researchers have been interested in the concept of Machia-vellianism for the past 40 years. Beginning in the early 1970s, researchers
developed and examined this construct, linking it conceptually to Niccolo
Machiavellis (1513/1998) original work, The Prince, which is characterized
as a guide to the use of deceitful, manipulative leadership practices.
Although many researchers (Christie, 1970b; Gable & Dangello, 1994;
Grams, & Rogers, 1990; McHoskey, 1995) have investigated Machiavel-
lianism, most define a Machiavellian (i.e., high Machs) as a manipulative
individual. While individuals who score high on existing Mach scales
engage in manipulative behaviors, this is only one aspect of Machiavellisapproach.
We propose that the purpose of Machiavellis (1513/1998)The Princewas
to advise leaders (i.e., princes) on the best way to rule subjects. While
Machiavelli advocated using manipulative, harsh, and deceitful behaviors, he
advocated such behavior only as necessary. In other words, when possible, a
1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stacey Kessler, Manage-
ment and Information Systems, School of Business, Montclair State University, Partridge Hall322B, 1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043. E-mail: [email protected]
1868
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2010, 40, 8, pp. 18681896.
2010 Copyright the Authors
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
2/29
ruler should manage his or her followers through kinder means. Therefore,
by definition, Machiavellianism is multifaceted and incorporates additionalattitudes and behaviors beyond deceit or manipulativeness.
It should also be noted that behavioral researchers have examined
Machiavellianism devoid of a specific context. We examine Machiavellian-
ism within todays organizational context because it is possible for indi-
viduals to behave and think differently in a work context than in their
personal lives. Organizational researchers have supported this claim by
adapting general individual-difference constructs to the work context. For
example, Spector (1988) answered Phares (1976) call to develop work-
specific measures with his Work Locus of Control Scale. Additionally,within todays organizations, the ability to influence others is an important
skill set at all levels. We believe that Machiavellis advice does not apply
solely to top management, but rather to most employees working within
organizations. Therefore, the purpose of the current paper is to introduce a
new model of Machiavellianism that incorporates additional facets, other
than manipulativeness, as well as to place Machiavellianism within an orga-
nizational context.
What Is Machiavellianism?
In 1513, Machiavelli completed a compelling narrative entitledThe Prince
that offered advice on how to acquire and maintain power over others
effectively during times of uncertainty and change. In his book, Machiavelli
discussed a pragmatic and rational approach to keeping power that is based
entirely on expediency and is devoid of the traditional virtues of trust, honor,
and decency (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996, p. 285). A primary theme
throughout his treatise is the degree to which people can be manipulated;specifically, to identify tactics differentiating those who wield influence from
those who are influenced.
Christie and Geis Model of Machiavellianism
Within the field of social psychology, the concept of Machiavellianism
was first studied by Christie and Geis (1970). These researchers began to
examine whether the principles associated with two of Machiavellis greatestworks (The Prince and The Discourses) were practiced by individuals in
todays society. They defined the Machiavellian personality type as someone
who seeks to manipulate others to achieve his or her own ends (Christie,
1970a).
RE-EXAMINING MACHIAVELLI 1869
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
3/29
Christie and Geiss (1970) model contains four components describing the
characteristics associated with effective manipulation and control of others.These include (a) a relative lack of affect in interpersonal relationships
(others are viewed entirely as objects or as means to personal ends); (b) a lack
of concern with conventional morality (people who manipulate others have a
utilitarian, rather than a moral view of their interactions with others); (c) a
lack of gross psychopathology (individuals who manipulate must hold a
rational view of others that is not based on distortions of reality; this point
has been challenged by some researchers and is one to which we will return
later); and (d) a low ideological commitment (manipulators are focused on
accomplishing tasks in the present and give little regard to the long-rangeramifications of their actions).
Assessing Machiavellianism
A basic premise of Machiavellianism is that high Machs are guided by
expediency, as opposed to principle, and will engage in a variety of behav-
iors, often manipulative and deceitful, in order to achieve certain end goals.
Using this definition, Christie and Geis (1970) designed scales to measureMachiavellianism. The most notable, the Mach IV, was based on state-
ments from Machiavellis (1513/1998)The Prince and The Discourses (1531/
1984). The Mach IV is a 20-item inventory that is scored on a 7-point
Likert-type scale. The instrument is purported to measure the degree to
which participants agree or disagree with the principles put forth in
Machiavellis writings.
The Mach IV consists of statements such as The best way to handle
people is to tell them what they want to hear, and Anyone who completely
trusts anyone else is asking for trouble. Christie (1970a) reported a split-halfreliability coefficient of .79 for the scale. Internal reliability estimates across
a number of studies have demonstrated levels of reliability ranging from
alphas of .60 to .70 (Mudrack & Mason, 1995).
Although the Mach IV scale provided the first attempt to measure
Machiavellianism, there were several problems with it (Ray, 1983). First, it
demonstrated inconsistent reliability estimates across studies. Second, the
Mach IV scale applies to general, everyday life and does not pertain to
particular contexts (e.g., the workplace). It is possible that individuals might
behave differently across situations (Mischel, 1968; Pervin & John, 1997),especially contexts as different as their work and personal lives. Third,
Christie and Geis (1970) focused only on the negative attributes of Machia-
vellian behavior and, as Deluga (2001) stated, Machiavellianism might not
necessarily be an entirely negative construct.
1870 KESSLER ET AL.
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
4/29
Organizational Machiavellianism
Several researchers (Hunter, Gerbing, & Boston, 1982; Vleeming, 1979)
have called for changes to the traditional Machiavellianism model. Critics of
the traditional model claim that the construct is too general because it
encompasses a broad spectrum that it is too general not context-specific.
Nelson and Gilbertson (1991) specifically proposed reconsidering the tradi-
tional theory and including concepts relevant to organizational contexts.
Based on these calls for change, we reviewed Machiavellis The Prince
and concluded that Machiavellis philosophy centered on effectively ruling
subjects. Specifically, he discussed strategies for maintaining power and
effectively managing others. Furthermore, while advocating the use of
manipulative and deceitful strategies, he suggested using these strategies only
as necessary. Therefore, while manipulativeness is part of Machiavellis
advice, we believe that Machiavellianism includes additional attitudes and
ideas. Therefore, the purpose of the current paper is to offer a more complete
description of Machiavellianism.
In addition to expanding on Christie and Geiss (1970) definition of
Machiavellianism, we also believe that it is necessary to examine the concept
within a specific context. We chose todays organizational context because it is
a setting where individuals need to influence others.
Based on the expanded view of Machiavellianism and the context-
specific domain, we define organizational Machiavellianism as the belief in
the use of manipulation, as necessary, to achieve ones desired ends in the
context of the work environment. Organizational Machiavellians are indi-
viduals who are comfortable with exploiting others, and do so when it is
beneficial to them. A key theme of the organizational Machiavellian is that
he or she will only use manipulative and deceitful strategies when it is
advantageous to do so. These types of employees are not necessarily heart-
less, nasty, or vindictive, but they can be genuinely accommodating and
respectful, when it is in their best interest to be so. For example, in The
Prince, Machiavelli (1513/1998) suggested that princes ought, at suitable
seasons of the year, entertain the people with festivals and shows (p. 61).
Clearly, such behavior seems respectful and accommodating. The key,
though, is that organizational Machiavellians will be guided by expediency,
rather than by principle. For example, Machiavelli also advised for princes
who
acquire such a state [by birth], if he means to keep it, must see
two things: first, that the blood of the ancient line of princes be
destroyed; and second, that no change be made in respect to
laws or taxes. (p. 3)
RE-EXAMINING MACHIAVELLI 1871
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
5/29
Study 1: Scale Development
Hypothesis Testing
The purpose of Study 1 is to develop a scale of Machiavellianism appro-
priate for an organizational context. As subject matter experts, we reviewed
all of the chapters from Machiavellis (1513/1998) The Prince in order to
better understand his philosophy. Based up on our review ofThe Prince, we
believe that Machiavellianism is multifaceted.
In order to design items for a new scale, we collected 91 passages from
Machiavellis manuscript. We chose passages that either introduce or follow
stories relayed by Machiavelli and hold advice for princes. While many ofthese passages advocate using deceit, others suggest that a good leader needs
to gain the good will of his or her subjects.
To reflect an organizational context, we rewrote the passages to make
them relevant within todays organizations, to abridge the length of the
passages, and to make them more appropriate to distribute to participants.
For example, Machiavelli (1513/1998) writes
as to the mental training of which we have spoken, a
prince should read histories, and in these should note theactions of great men, observe how they conducted themselves
in their wars, and examine the causes of their victories and
defeats, so as to avoid the latter and imitate them in the
former. (p. 8)
We rewrote this passage to read One should always read about great pre-
vious leaders in order to emulate them. It should be noted that we only
reviewed Machiavellis The Prince, as opposed to The Discourses, because
some scholars have suggested that The Princefocuses on the role of a ruler,
while The Discourses focuses more on arguments for having a republican
form of government (Machiavelli, 1531/1984).
Method
Participants
Study participants included 402 individuals (130 males, 272 females) whoworked at least 20 hours per week. All participants were taking classes at a
large, urban university where almost all students are employed, many in
full-time, permanent positions. Participants ages ranged from 18 to over 49
years, with 21% of the sample older than age 25. There were 69% of respon-
1872 KESSLER ET AL.
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
6/29
dents who identified themselves as Caucasian, 9% as African American, 10%
as Hispanic/Latino, 4% as Asian American, and 8% as other. In addition,21% of participants jobs were managerial, and 49% classified their jobs as
white collar.
Measures
Organizational Machiavellianism items. We developed 91 items using 91
passages and excerpts from Machiavellis The Prince (1513/1998). Based on
Christie and Geiss (1970) method, we rewrote each passage to create ascale item reflecting a modern organizational context. This approach was
used original work. The items were rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Sample items include When enter-
ing a new company, it is important to gain the good will of those already
there, and An effective individual behaves in a devious fashion when
necessary.
Demographic variables. The demographic variables section consisted of
seven items: gender, ethnicity, age, educational level, job status (i.e., mana-
gerial or nonmanagerial), job type (i.e., white collar or blue collar), andnumber of hours worked per week.
Procedure
The survey was administered to volunteers over a 4-month period in both
online and traditional paper-and-pencil formats. Using this data, we con-
ducted three principle component factor analyses with varimax rotations.
Results
In the first factor analyses we included all 91 items. An examination of
the scree plot indicates support for a three-factor solution (the three factors
accounted for 36.9% of the variance). After the third factor, the scree plot
indicated that the remaining factors accounted for very little variance (
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
7/29
In the third factor analysis, we again forced a three-factor solution and
kept items using the same criteria we applied in the two previous factoranalyses (see Table 1 for the items and factor loadings). This resulted in 6
items loading on each factor. After reviewing the content of items loading on
each factor, the factors were subsequently named Maintaining Power, Man-
agement Practices, and Manipulativeness. Consistent with the goal of
re-examining the philosophy, we decided to name the scale the Organiza-
tional Machiavellianism Scale (OMS).
Discussion
The results of Study 1 suggest that the Machiavellianism philosophy is,
indeed, multifaceted and is composed of more than just manipulativeness. An
examination of the scree plot suggested three factors. After examining the
items, the three factors were named Maintaining Power, Management
Practices, and Manipulativeness.
Study 2: Scale Refinement and Construct Validity Evidence
The purpose of Study 2 is threefold. The first goal is to confirm the
obtained factor structure from Study 1. The second and third goals are to
review the relationship between Christie and Geiss (1970) Mach IV and the
OMS, as well as the pattern of relationships between these scales and other
organizational variables, respectively. While Christie and Geis focused on the
manipulative aspects of Machiavellianism, the OMS takes a broader view of
the concept. Therefore, we expect only one factor of the OMS (i.e., manipu-
lativeness) to correlate with Christie and Geiss Mach IV. This is because, the
relationships found between the Mach IV and organizational variablesspecifically, the Big Five personality traits (Lee & Ashton, 2005), social skills
(Gable & Dangello, 1994; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; House & Howell,
1992; Mudrack & Mason, 1995; Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1998), and emotions
(Wastell & Booth, 2003)suggest that Machiavellianism is a negative orga-
nizational construct.
Although we expect the Manipulativeness factor of the OMS to yield
similar patterns as the Mach IV, we believe that the relationships between the
aforementioned organizational variables and the remaining two factors of
the OMS will question previously held views of Machiavellianism, at leastin organizational settings. Also, although we are unaware of any research
that has examined the relationship between Machiavellianism and political
skill within organizations, we believe that those who score high on the OMS
factors are motivated to possess strong political skills, and expect this pattern
1874 KESSLER ET AL.
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
8/29
Table1
Factor
Analysisan
dItem
Ana
lysis
Re
sults:
Stu
dy
1
Item
Factor1
Factor2
Factor3
2.Aneffectiv
eindividualbuildsapowerbaseofstrongpeople.
-.040
-.077
.571
3.Apersont
hatunderstandsconflictwillbe
respectedbyotherpeople.
-.012
.013
.545
4.Itisgoodtobeonthelook-outfornewo
pportunitiestoadvanceonesp
ositionintheorganization.
-.233
.041
.611
5.Oneshouldknowhowtoappearkindand
useitforpersonalgain.
.052
.194
.364
6.Apersons
houldconsistentlyrewardthosethatworkforhim/her.
-.015
.118
.480
7.Employees
shouldbewatchedwithaney
eofsuspicionbecauseitisnaturalforpeopletodesireto
acquirepower.
.111
.523
.216
10.Sincemostemployeesareambitious,they
willonlydogooddeedsifitbe
nefitsthem.
.058
.470
.079
15.Whenseek
ingrevenge,anindividualshou
ldcompletelydefeatacompetit
ortoensurenoretaliation.
.121
.496
-.032
18.Itisnotim
portantforanindividualtolea
rnaboutthemistakesofunsuc
cessfulpeople.
.516
.075
-.058
19.Apersons
houldtakecaretoalwaysappeartobemerciful,upright,andhumane.
-.223
.019
.465
21.Sincemostpeopleareweak,arationalind
ividualshouldtakeadvantageofthesituationtomaximize
his/herowngains.
.312
.553
.069
22.Itisimpor
tanttobeagoodactor,butalsocapableofconcealingthistalent.
.029
.517
.179
23.Itisnothe
lpfultolearnfromandimitate
greatindividualsthathavecom
ebeforeyou.
.699
.113
-.061
24.Itisnotim
portanttobeaggressiveandcleverwhendealingwithotherorganizationmembers(R).
.546
.011
-.053
25.Itisnotim
portantforapersontoencouragehis/hersubordinatestalents.
.581
.181
-.071
29.Itisnotim
portantforanindividualtokeephis/heremployeescontent.
.517
.139
.054
30.Itiseasytointroduceandenforcenewrules.
.536
.163
.008
31.Themosteffectivemeansofgettingpeopletobehaveinanethicalfashionisbymakingthemfearfulof
behavingo
therwise.
.312
.516
.034
Note
.Factor1=
MaintainingPower;Factor2=
ManagementPractices;Factor3=
Manipulativeness.
RE-EXAMINING MACHIAVELLI 1875
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
9/29
of relationships to provide additional evidence regarding previously held
views of Machiavellianism in organizations.Machiavellianism and the Big Five personality traits. The Big Five model
suggests that personality can be described in five dimensions: openness to
experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism
(Costa & McCrae, 1992). Most researchers who have examined the relation-
ships between Machiavellianism and the Big Five personality variables have
focused on neuroticism because, according to Christie and Geiss (1970)
model, a lack of psychopathology is necessary for Machiavellian personality
types to successfully manipulate others. They contended that individuals who
suffer from psychological disorders possess deficiencies, rendering themunable to evaluate others in social situations. Researchers have examined this
proposition and have found mixed results (Christie, 1970b; Grams & Rogers,
1990; McCutcheon, 2002; Paulhus, Williams, & Harms, 2001; Ray, 1976,
1979).
More recently, Lee and Ashton (2005) expanded research on Machiavel-
lianism and the Big Five personality traits. Using Christie and Geiss (1970)
measure of Machiavellianism, they found that Machiavellianism was nega-
tively related to agreeableness and conscientiousness. Although negative
in direction, they did not find significant relationships among Machiavel-lianism and extraversion, openness to experience, or emotional stability (i.e.,
neuroticism).
Machiavellianism and social skills. The relationship between social skills
and Machiavellianism is perhaps one of the most intriguing concepts associ-
ated with the study of Machiavellianism. Several studies (Gable & Dangello,
1994; Hogan et al., 1994; House & Howell, 1992; Mudrack & Mason, 1995;
Wilson et al., 1998) have suggested a link between the behaviors people
exhibit in social interactions and their tendency to use Machiavellian tactics.
Nelson and Gilbertson (1991) proposed a four-cell model depicting high andlow Machs against dangerous and benign typologies. In their model, danger-
ous high Machs are more likely to seek out social interactions that involve
manipulative tactics. Wilson et al. (1996) related the psychological research
on Machiavellianism to theories in evolutionary literature. They suggested
that Machiavellianism can be used as a set of rules for social interactions
wherein the concepts of trust, honor, and decency are vulnerable to
short-term exploitation. Although their research presented intriguing ideas,
Wilson et al. (1996) only provided hypotheses between the evolutionary
psychological Machiavellian literatures. They concluded that future researchshould be conducted and that their hypotheses should be used as a basis for
designing new Machiavellian perspectives.
Machiavellianism and emotional intelligence(EI). There have been incon-
sistent results concerning the link between Machiavellianism and emotion-
1876 KESSLER ET AL.
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
10/29
related skills, such as emotional intelligence (EI). At one extreme, Wastell
and Booth (2003) suggested that a Machiavellian is a person who is uncon-nected to his or her emotions (i.e., is an alexithymic) (p. 730). Wastell and
Booth (2003) proposed that Machiavellians have an inability to connect to
others emotionally and, as a result of this deficiency, treat people as objects
or means to ends. They also found that Machiavellianism was positively
associated with an inability to identify feelings.
Austin, Farrelly, Black, and Moore (2007) used Christie and Geiss (1970)
Machiavellianism scale to examine its relationship to EI assessed with both
Bar-Ons (1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQI) and the Mayer,
Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, &Caruso, 2002). They also examined how these two EI measures related to
emotional manipulation. They found that Machiavellianism was related to
emotional manipulation, but that EI was not. These results question previous
lines of research regarding the relationship between Machiavellianism and
emotional skills (Wastell & Booth, 2003). More specifically, it seems that high
Machs choose to use their emotional skills only in the context of manipulat-
ing others.
Machiavellianism and political skill. We are unaware of previous research
examining the relationship between political skill and Machiavellianism.However, based on Ferris, Perrew, Anthony, and Gilmores (2000) defini-
tion of political skill, we believe that meaningful relationships are likely.
Ferris et al. (2000) defined political skill as the extent to which an
individual combines social astuteness with the ability to relate well, and
otherwise demonstrate situationally appropriate behavior in a disarmingly
charming and engaging manner that inspires confidence, trust, sincerity, and
genuineness (p. 30). They explained that political skill is composed of four
dimensions: social astuteness (SA), interpersonal influence (II), networking
ability (NA), and apparent sincerity (AS; Ferris et al., 2005). We believe thatpolitical skills represent tools that employees use to accomplish certain goals.
Therefore, we propose that the three OMS factors and political skill are
positively related because of the nature of influence tactics and political
behavior that they share.
Current Study and Hypothesis Testing
To accomplish the first goal of Study 2, we used confirmatory factoryanalysis to confirm the factor structure that we obtained in Study 1. The
second purpose was addressed by determining the relationship between the
OMS and Christie and Geiss (1970) scale. Because Christie and Geis focused
solely on the manipulativeness aspects of the philosophy, we expect that
RE-EXAMINING MACHIAVELLI 1877
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
11/29
only the Manipulativeness factor of the OMS will relate to their scale. Third,
we examined the relationship of the three OMS factors with personality,variables, emotions, and political skill. Although some relationships between
Christie and Geiss Mach IV and other variables have been inconsistent, we
believe that the relationships between the Manipulativeness factor of the
OMS and these variables should mirror the general pattern of relationships
found with Christie and Geiss Mach IV.
Hypothesis 1. The OMS will fit a three-factor structure con-
sisting of maintaining power, management practices, and
manipulativeness.
Christie and Geiss (1970) Mach IV focused on the more negative and
manipulative side of the Machiavellian construct. We propose that while high
Machs can behave in a manipulative and harsh fashion, they only do so when
it is necessary to achieve desired ends. However, we believe that this is only
one part of the Machiavellian construct. Therefore, we propose that Christie
and Geiss Mach IV will be positively related to the Manipulativeness factor
of the OMS, but will have no relationship with the other two factors.
Hypothesis 2. There will be a positive relationship between theManipulativeness factor of the OMS and the Mach IV, but
there will be no relationship between the Mach IV and the other
factors of the OMS.
Furthermore, we believe that only certain OMS factors will positively
relate to conscientiousness. Conscientious employees pay attention to detail
and are achievement-oriented and hard-working. Because it is important
to be able to maintain power in the workplace and manage others, con-
scientious employees might believe that engaging in these behaviorsis important. However, within the organizational environment, the open
manipulation of others is not encouraged. Therefore, conscientious employ-
ees are less likely to believe that engaging in manipulative behavior is
appropriate.
Hypothesis 3. There will be a positive relationship between two
factors of the OMS (i.e., Maintaining Power, Management
Practices) and conscientiousness, but there will be a negative
relationship between the factor of Manipulativeness andconscientiousness.
Additionally, all three factors of the OMS (i.e., Maintaining Power, Man-
agement Practices, Manipulativeness) require employees to interact with one
1878 KESSLER ET AL.
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
12/29
another. Extraverted individuals tend to be more outgoing and sociable.
Therefore, individuals who score high on each of the OMS factors are morelikely to be extraverted.
Hypothesis 4. All three factors of the OMS will be positively
related to extraversion.
The relationship between Machiavellianism and neuroticism has been
documented since the early 1970s. The results of most studies have indicated
a negative relationship between the two constructs. Christie and Geis (1970)
suggested that Machiavellians lack neurotic characteristics because of their
ability to manipulate. Since we believe that the OMS Manipulativeness factorwill be correlated with Christie and Geiss scale, we expect a negative rela-
tionship with this factor of the OMS and neuroticism. Additionally, Paulhus
et al. (2001) suggested that neurotic individuals have difficulties relating to
others. We propose that those who score high on the remaining two OMS
factors (i.e., Maintaining Power, Managing Others) will believe that they are
able to relate to others.
Hypothesis 5. There will be a negative relationship between all
three factors of the OMS and neuroticism.In order to maintain power and manage others in todays workforce, it is
necessary to display a degree of flexibility. Agreeable individuals are better
able to maintain a degree of flexibility and, therefore, are hypothesized to
score higher on the first two OMS factors (i.e., Maintaining Power, Manage-
ment Practices). However, if individuals are overly agreeable, they will not be
able to maintain power or manage those around them. Therefore, we propose
that the relationship between agreeableness and the first two factors of the
OMS will be positive and significant, but not extremely strong. On the other
hand, employees who believe that it is beneficial to manipulate those aroundthem will tend to be disagreeable with others because their goal is to take
advantage of other employees.
Hypothesis 6. There will positive relationships between the first
two factors of the OMS (Maintaining Power, Management
Practices) and agreeableness, but a negative relationship
between the Manipulativeness factor of the OMS and
agreeableness.
There is an increasing trend toward influencing other employees using
social skills, as opposed to commanding employees through the traditional
organizational hierarchy. EI is about being aware of ones own emotions, as
well as the emotions of others, and using this information to influence others.
RE-EXAMINING MACHIAVELLI 1879
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
13/29
Traditionally, researchers have suggested that high Machs are devoid of
emotional skills altogether (Wastell & Booth, 2003). However, a recent study(Austin et al., 2007) suggested that high Machs might be able to perceive
the emotions of others and use this information for manipulative purposes.
Therefore, we propose that those who score high on the Manipulativeness
factor of the OMS will possess high levels of EI. We also believe that those
high on the OMS factors of Maintaining Power and Management Practices
will possess higher amounts of EI because they will need this skill set to
accomplish their goals within todays organizations.
Hypothesis 7. There will be a positive relationship between emo-
tional intelligence and all three factors of the OMS.
We are unaware of research that has examined the relationship between
political skill and Machiavellianism. However, we propose that the two
concepts are positively related as a result of the nature of influence tactics and
political behavior that they share.
Hypothesis 8. There will be a positive relationship between the
three OMS factors (Maintaining Power, Management Prac-
tices, Manipulativeness) and the four political skill facets (social
astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and
apparent sincerity).
Method
Participants
An independent sample of 465 individuals (110 males, 355 females) from
the same subject population as Study 1 were participants in Study 2. Partici-pants mean age was 28.3 years, and 67% of the respondents identified
themselves as Caucasian. Again, 21% of participants jobs were managerial.
Measures
Organizational Machiavellianism Scale(OMS). The 18-item, three-factor
scale developed in Study 1 was used in the current study. Each of the items
were scored on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) t o 6(strongly agree), with higher scores indicating that an individual scored
higher on the OMS dimension. The alphas for the Maintaining Power, Man-
agement Practices, and Manipulativeness subscales of the OMS were .67, .72,
and .76, respectively.
1880 KESSLER ET AL.
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
14/29
Mach IV Scale(Christie & Geis, 1970). The Mach IV scale is comprised
of 20 statements (10 of which are negatively phrased) that pertain towhether an individual adheres to the principles of Machiavellianism. Each
of the statements was scored on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores representing high Machs
and low scores representing low Machs. According to Christie & Geis, high
Machs are skilled at deception and manipulation. Split-half reliabilities
based on several different studies yielded a moderately high coefficient
alpha of .79 (Mudrack, 2000).
Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). The BFI
consists of 44 items that measure the dimensions of the Big Five. Theinstrument was developed out of factor-analytic work involving the
five-factor personality model. The inventory includes 8 items that
assess extraversion, 9 items that assess agreeableness, 9 items that assess
conscientiousness, 8 items that assess neuroticism, and 10 items that
assess openness to experience. The items were scored on a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly), with higher
scores reflecting a higher standing on each of the variables. Sample
items include I see myself as someone who generates a lot of enthusiasm
(extraversion), and I see myself as someone who can be moody (neuroti-cism). John et al. reported alpha coefficients in the low .80s for each of the
dimensions.
Emotional intelligence. To assess EI, we used the Wong and Law Emo-
tional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS; Wong & Law, 2002). This instrument
consists of 16 items that are rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 ( strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of
EI. Sample items include I have good understanding of my own emotions,
and I am a good observer of others emotions. Wong and Law reported
reliability estimates ranging from .76 to .89.Political Skill Inventory (PSI; Ferris et al., 2005). The PSI is an 18-item
measure that is rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of political skill.
Sample items include It is easy for me to develop good rapport with most
people, and I spend a lot of time and effort at work networking with
others. The four factors include Social Astuteness (5 items), Interpersonal
Influence (4 items), Networking Ability (6 items), and Apparent Sincerity (3
items). Ferris et al. reported an overall internal consistency reliability esti-
mate of .89.Demographic variables. The demographic variables section consisted of
seven items: gender, ethnicity, age, educational level, job status (i.e., mana-
gerial or nonmanagerial), job type (i.e., white collar or blue collar), and
number of hours worked per week.
RE-EXAMINING MACHIAVELLI 1881
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
15/29
Procedure
All instruments were combined into one assessment battery that was given
to study participants. The survey was administered online, and the assess-
ment battery took approximately 25 to 30 min to complete.
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL (Jreskog & Srbom,
2006) was run to confirm the obtained factor structure of the scale. Factors
were allowed to correlate with one another. Although the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) is the most popular index, we also examined
other indexes, such as the comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI),
non-normed fit index (NNFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and adjusted
goodness-of-fit index (AGFI). For the CFI, NFI, GFI, and NNFI, values of at
least .90 indicate a good fit; for the AGFI, a value of at least .80 indicates a
good fit; and for the RMSEA, a value less than .08 indicates good fit.
The three-factor model for the 18 items showed good fit (see Table 2).
These findings support our central premise that Machiavellianism is, indeed,
Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Fit Statistics: Study 2
Fit index Three-factor model (18 items)
CFI .93
NFI .89
NNFI .92
GFI .93
AGFI .91
RMSEA .05
c2 test of exact fit 316.82
df 132
Note. CFI =comparative fit index; NFI =normed fitindex; NNFI = non-normed fit index; GFI =goodness-of-fit index; AGFI= adjusted goodness-of-fit index;RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation.
1882 KESSLER ET AL.
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
16/29
a multifaceted construct. More specifically, they provide support for
Hypothesis 1.
Relationships With Other Variables
Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table 3, and
the intercorrelations among study variables are presented in Table 4. Con-
sistent with Hypothesis 2, only the Manipulativeness factor of the OMS was
significantly correlated with Christie and Geiss (1970) Mach IV scale.
The following hypotheses examine the relationship between the OMS
and the Big Five. Hypothesis 3 stated that both Maintaining Power andManagement Practices factors of the OMS would positively relate to con-
scientiousness, while the third factor of the OMS (i.e., Manipulativeness)
would negatively relate to conscientiousness. This hypothesis was supported.
Hypothesis 4 was partially supported; only one factor of the OMS (i.e.,
Maintaining Power) was significantly related to extraversion. Hypothesis 5
was also only partially supported. Maintaining Power was negatively related
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Study 2 Variables
Variable M SD
OMS: Maintaining Power 28.82 3.37
OMS: Management Practices 25.76 5.36
OMS: Manipulativeness 19.44 4.77
Mach IV 72.89 12.05
Social astuteness 27.93 4.11
Interpersonal influence 22.74 4.11
Networking ability 30.88 6.42
Apparent sincerity 17.39 2.41
Emotional intelligence 88.27 12.81
Extraversion 31.07 5.47
Agreeableness 37.24 4.56
Conscientiousness 37.44 4.28Neuroticism 25.80 6.22
Openness 38.70 5.86
Note. OMS=Organizational Machiavellianism Scale.
RE-EXAMINING MACHIAVELLI 1883
5/24/2018 Kessler Et Al. 2010 JASP
17/29
Table4
Correlations
Among
Stu
dy
2Variable
s
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.OMS:Power
(.67)
2.OMS:Ma
nage
.14**
(.72)
3.OMS:Ma
nip.
.17**-.33**
(.76)
4.Extraversion
.18**-.01
-.01
(.74)
5.Agreeable
ness
.25**
.21**-.28**
.24**
(.68)
6.Conscient
.
.22**
.23**-.22**
.26**
.50**
(.63)
7.Neuroticism
-.10*
.02
.01
-.30**-.30**-.27**
(.74)
8.Openness
.15**
.13**-.07
.35**
.30**
.27**-.16*
(.76)
9.EI
.36**
.10
.01
.30**
.45**
.44**-.47**
.26**
(.92)
10.PSI:SA
.42**
.10*
.02
.38**
.36**
.39**-.32**
.34**
.71**
(.82)
11.PSI:II
.40**
.13*
-.04
.50**
.48**
.40**-.37**
.29**
.66**
.77**(.88)
12.PSI:NA
.36**-.06
.09
.45**
.30**
.23**-.32**
.19**
.44**
.61**.67**
(.89)
13.PSI:AS
.41**
.20**-.05
.30**
.41**
.43**-.19**
.38**
.61**
.79**.64**
.50**
(.83)
14.PSITotal
.45**
.06
.02
.51**
.45**
.40**-.37**
.32**
.67**
.89**.88**
.88**
.78**
(.94)
15.MachIV
.01
-.09
.45**
-.11
-.43**-.33**
.24**-.12*
-.26**-.18**-.26**-.14**-.24**-.26**
(.74)
Note
.OMS=O
rganizationalMachiavellianism
Scale;Power=
MaintainingP
ower;Manage=
Management
Practices;Manip.=
Manipulativ
eness;
EI=
emotional
intelligence;PSI=
PoliticalSkillsInventory;SA=
socialastuteness;II=
interpersonalinfluence;N
A=
networkingability;AS=
apparent
sincerity;Mach
IV=
ChristieandGeis(1970)M
achiavellianismIVScale.
Nsrangefrom386to452.
*p