machiavellianism and management: a review of single-nation studies exclusive of the usa and...

PsychologicalReports, 1997,80,291-304. O Psychological Reports 1997

MACHIAVELLIANISM AND MANAGEMENT: A REVIEW OF SINGLE-NATION STUDIES EXCLUSIVE OF THE

USA AND CROSS-NATIONAL STUDIES '

JANICE BAKER CORZINE

Anderson Schools of Management University o,f New Mexico

Sutnmaty.-This is a review of literature on Machiavellianism involving single-nation stuBes exclusive of the USA and cross-national studies. The articles are em~irical studies with a direct or indirect relationship to management. National groups with especially high and low scores on the Mach IV and Mach V are identified. Issues which need to be addressed include a sampling bias which favors students, a lack of field studies. auestions raised about factor structure of common scales used to measure . . Machiavehanism, and inconsistencies in the results of studies involving h e relationship of locus of control, achievement motivation, and authoritarianism to Machiavelli- anism. Research involving organizational context and job performance should be undertaken as should additional cross-national research.

In today's global business environment, managers face numerous chal- lenges in dealing with their counterparts from different cultures and nations. There is considerable evidence that values differ markedly across cultures (e.g., Hofstede, 1983) and that managerial behaviors differ according to nationality (e.g., Hofstede, 1985). Further, individual values held by managers may affect their business decisions (Snodgrass & Sekaran, 1989). Thus, it is important for individuals who conduct business internationally to understand behavioral and value differences which they might encounter in international business contexts.

Machiavehanism (Christie & Geis, 1970) is a construct drawn from Machiaveh's The Prince (1513) and The Discourses (1531), which involves a set of behaviors including negativism, duplicity, lack of conventional rnoral- ity, and emotional detachment. Evidence exists which indicates that Machia- vehanism in managers varies across nations and cultures (e.g., Ralston, Gustafson, Cheung, & Terpstra, 1993). Such evidence indicates h e need for a systematic review of published studies on Machiavehanism which utilize subjects from nations other than the United States or which compare subjects from the USA and other countries. Scholarly interest in international business underhes this need (e.g., Hegarty, 1995) as does the fact that the

'Address enquiries to J. B. Corzine, Anderson Schools of Management, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 8713 1-1221. 'Tables are on file in Document NAPS-05378. Rem~r S9 65 for hotocopy or $5.00 for fiche to the National Auxihary Publications Service, c/o M~crohclle ~ub\cations. PO Box 3513, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163.

J. B. CORZINE

majority of studies on Machiavehanism have been conducted with U.S. subjects. This paper focuses on a review of studies from several countries and proposes an agenda for research. Ln this review, articles were categorized as single-nation studies exclusive of the USA or as cross-national studies. The cross-nac~onal category identified studies comparing subjects from two or more natlons and included studies involving US subjects. These classifica- tions are adaptations of those used by Robertson (1993) with Robertson's "international" designation becoming "single-nation exclusive of the USA." Research entirely on populations from the USA is not included here except for dscussion purposes.

LITERATURE REVIEW The articles included in this analysis were derived from computerized

and manual searches of literature. On-line data bases consulted included PsycLIT, Social Scisearch, American Business Lndex/Lnforrn, Wilson Busi- ness Index, and ArticleFirst. A search of Psychological Abstracts was also conducted. These databases and the printed publication were logical sources for articles on Machiavellianism. Using such sources also permitted cross-check- ing of listings. However, no claim is made that this review is totally exhaus- tive. Articles referenced in this literature review were obtained from management journals, e.g., Journal of International Business Studies, psychology journals, e.g., Journal of Social Psychology, marketing journals, e.g., International Journal of Bank Marketing, and education journals, e.g., Indian Journal of Psycho?netry and Education. For all articles reviewed here, the full paper was obtained. Articles were then categorized according to single-nation or cross- national focus. Within the two main categories, studes were classified according to size and composition of sample, topic, occupational group, meth- od or instrumentation, and results. To be included the paper had to be an empirical study, had to focus on links between Machiavehanism and other variables or have a comparative emphasis, or examine the vaLdity of scales used to measure Machiavehanism developed by or adapted from Christie and Geis (1970). Further, it had to have a direct or indirect relation to management. This last criterion resulted in the elmination of studies focusing primarily on personality disorders or those which dealt with hospitahzed subjects or subjects selected because they.were in treatment programs.

Scales The Mach IV scale developed by Christie and Geis (1970) is the most

commonly used measure of Machiavehanism in the studtes reviewed here as well as generally (e.g., Hunt & Chonko, 1984). The Mach IV is a rating scale consisting of 20 items. Its brevity combined with its split-half reliabihty coefficient of .79 as reported by Christie and Geis (1970, p. 16) has made the Mach IV desirable for both survey and experimental research. The Mach

MACHIAVELLIANISM AND MANAGEMENT 293

V, developed to minimize socially desirable responses (Christie & Geis, 19701, is a forced-choice inventory of 20 triads which has been frequently used by researchers and is uthzed in several of the studes reviewed here. Vleeming (1979) expressed concern about possible technical problems with the Mach V due to its forced-choice format which produces ipsativity (p. 296). A third questionnaire used in one study in this review (i.e., Nedd & Marsh, 1979) is a modification of the Kiddie Mach, a simplified version con- ceived by Nachamie (Christie & Geis, 1970, p. 326) for use with children. Christie and Geis reported that the IGddie Mach yielded &sappointing split- half reliabhties from nonsignificant to the 30s range. Also included here are examinations of the Christie and Geis (1970) scales totaling 50 items from which the Mach IV was drawn ( f i e , 1983; Kline & Cooper, 1984).

Vleeming (1979) was critical of some of the Machiavellian stu&es he reviewed because some authors d ~ d not report measures of internal consistency and because presented reliability coefficients were sometimes low or inconsistent across studies. Unfortunately, that may be said of certain studies reviewed here.

In the single-nation studies in this review, Nedd and Marsh (1979) report no reliabhty coefficients for their adaptation of the Gddie Mach used in New Zealand. G a h and Nigro (1983) do not present rehabhty information on their Italian version of the Mach IV but do reference a manual for the Italian version. On the other hand, Vleeming (1984) reports a reliability coefficient of .71 for his Dutch version of the Mach IV, and Gupta (1987) presents a respectable r of .86 for his Hindi version of Mach lV.

In the cross-national stuhes, an Arabic back-translated version of the Mach IV is reported to have reliabhty coefficients varying from .77 for westernized men to a low .47 for traditional women (Starr, 1975). Maroldo and Flachmeier (1978) do not give any reliabhty data on the German translation of the Mach IV used in their study. The authors state only that the German version is based primarily on the work of Cloetta; there is no expla- nation of ways in which their German Mach IV might deviate from Cloetta's version, nor are any rehability coefficients reported. Galli, Nigro, and Kram- pen (1986) reference a manual for the Italian Mach IV but present no reliabhty data in the article. Finally, no reliab~lity measures are reported for a back-translated Chinese version of the Mach IV used in two studes (Ral- ston, Gustafson, Cheung, & Terpstra, 1993; Ralston, Gustafson, Terpstra, Holt, Cheung, & Ebbens, 1993).

Several versions of the Christie and Geis Machiavehanism scales (1970) used in single-nation studies outside of the USA have been subjected to sirn- ple correlational analysis, factor analysis, or cluster analysis. Ray (1983) ques- tioned the construct validity of the Mach TV scale based on his findings in a study of 128 Austrdans that the two halves of the Mach IV had a nonsig-

294 J. B. CORZINE

nificant correlation ( r = .12). Ahmed and Stewart (1981) examined the factor structure of the Mach IV with Canadian university students as subjects. This research identified five factors which could be interpreted. A Dutch version of the Mach IV yielded four clusters: honesty, Machiavellian views, flattery, and cynicism (Vleeming, 1984, p. 617). A British study involved a factor analysis of the Christie and Geis "50 best items forming three scales" (Khne, 1983, p. 7). The Mach items loaded on one factor in this study. A second study (Kline & Cooper, 1984) conducted with English undergraduates subjected the three Mach scales w ~ h a total of 50 items referenced above to both item analysis and oblique rotdted factor analysis. It was concluded that Mach scales for tactics and views could be justified for use in Great Britain based on the factor analysis (with the tactics factor being "similar" to those of the Mach IV). However, Khie and Cooper also reported that only two items loaded on the morahty factor, and they contended that the use of the morality scale is not appropriate with a British population. In the cross-national category, Kuo and Marsella (1977) found different factor structures in the Mach IV for Taiwanese and American students, there being five factors in each solution. It should be noted that the samples in these six studies were small. However, concerns about the dimensionality of the Mach IV (e.g., Hunter, Boster & Gerbing, 1982; Panitz, 1989) and the Mach V (e.g., Williams, Hazelton, & Renshaw, 1975) have been raised in studies involving US samples. These results considered with the findings from the studies reviewed here would indcate that further investigation of measurement issues relative to Machiavehanism is warranted.

Single-nation Studies There are 22 studies of Machiavellianism in this category including the

studies discussed above which focused entirely on the measurement of Ma- chiavelhanism (i.e., Ahmed & Stewart, 1981; Kline & Cooper, 1984; Ray, 1983). In an early study, Nedd and Marsh (1979) assessed indigenous and immigrant European and Polynesian first-line supervisors in New Zealand and found no relationship between Machiavellianism and fatahsm or personal efficacy. The two authors concluded that preference for modernism was linked to Machiavellian behavior in interpersonal relationships. Unfortu- nately, Nedd and Marsh gave no rationale for using items from the Kiddie Mach with an adult population, and they did not indicate which IGddie Mach items were selected by discriminant analysis for data analysis.

The possible presence of Machiavehan tendenc~es among students interested in pursuing business careers has been the focus of several single nation studes outside of the USA. In one experiment, Canadian undergraduates who faked Machiavehanism were more Uely to choose business as an occupation (Skmner, Giorkas, & Hornstein, 1976). A weakness of this study

MACHIAVELLIANISM AND MANAGEMENT 2 95

is the element of fakery; thus, results should be interpreted with this factor in mind. It should be noted that Skmner (1982) addressed the issue of sirnu- lating Machiavehanism in an experiment with Canadian students in which he found that Honest Mach and Simulated Mach scores were almost the same. Skinner's (1981) study of Canadian business administration majors sup- ported the hypothesis that business majors scored higher on the Mach V than did those not majoring in business. In a more recent study also involving Canadian undergraduates, McLean and Jones (1992) found that students majoring in business were more likely to be High Machs than were nonbusiness students majoring in the sciences but not in the arts. Taken together, these studies suggest that undergraduate business students have higher Ma- chiavellian scores than those who select other majors.

Several studies examined links among Mach scores and variables such as achievement, authoritarianism, locus of control, or extraversion. Ln the Skinner (1981) study mentioned above, Canadian business majors scored significantly higher than did those not majoring in business on the Achieve- ment Motivation Inventory as well as on the Mach V. Skinner suggested that achievement motivation may be related to Machiavelhanism only for indlvid- uals interested in careers in business. Vleeming (1984) found no association among Dutch Mach IV scores, the Achievement Motivation measure and the Least Preferred Coworker Scale for Dutch university students. No relationship was found between scores on the Machiavehanism measure and locus of control in this research. A significant relationship was found, however, between Dutch Mach TV scores and both Authoritarianism scores and Social Desirabibty scores for this group.

In a similar study, GaUl and Nigro (1983) found a positive correlation of .37 (p<.OO1) between the Italian Mach IV and Rotter's I-E Scale in a study of Italian students. Although the Galli and Nigro results are consistent with those of several other studles (e.g., Gable, Hollon, & Dangelo, 1990), Prociuk and Breen's (1976) finding of a significant correlation between Mach V scores and Rotter's I-E Scale for Canadan undergraduate men but not for women and Vleeming's (1984) finding of no relationship between Machiavellianism and locus of control among Dutch students raises questions about drawing any definitive conclusions about associations between the two constructs. Also, Vleeming reports a positive relationship between Machiavehanism and Authoritarianism. Using factor analysis and correlation, K h e (1983) found Machiavellianism and Authoritarianism generally independent of each other (p. 6) for British students; however, K h e also noted that two elements of Authoritarianism correlated positively and one correlated negatively with the Machiavehan measure. It should be noted that different languages, methodologies, and measures were used in the Vleeming (1984) and K h e (1983) studies.

296 J . B. CORZINE

In an examination of possible links between Machiavehanism and extraversion, Skinner (1983) selected Canadian men with the highest scores on the Mach V from a larger pool and found that High Mach scoring business majors also scored significantly higher on Extraversion as measured by the Eysenck Personality Questiomaire than High Mach scoring nonbusiness majors. AU High Machs had high scores on the Toughmindedness scale relative to the normative mean. Skinner points out that a tendency to extraversion and toughmindedness by High Mach scoring subjects who are business majors tends to explain the previously described hk between Machiavellianism and business occupations (i.e., Skmner, 1981).

Two articles which focused on the presence of Machiavelhan tendencies in managers as compared to other occupational groups or students are rele- vant. The frequently cited Siegel article (1973) examined Canadian managers, MBA students, and business school faculty members. Using the Mach V to measure Machiavellianism, Siegel found that managers had the lowest scores of the three groups on the Mach scale (M=95.19), while MBA students scored significantly higher (M= 106.21) than the managers according to the results of a two-tailed t test. Faculty scored the highest of the three groups with a mean Mach score of 109.75. Siegel also found that democratic leadership attitudes were associated with lower Mach scores. Gupta (1987) used a Hind version of the Mach IV in his study of Indian executives and other professionals. Lawyers had the highest mean Mach scores (115.3) fol- lowed by executives (106.61, physicians (104.5), and teachers (90.9). Analysis of variance indicated significant differences, and Duncan's new multiple range test showed that only means for the doctors and executives were not significantly different. Also the mean for men's Mach scores of 110.5 was significantly higher than the mean score for women (98.1).

In two early experimental studies with Indian undergraduates, researchers focused on possible relationships involving Machiavehanism and ingratiation. In the first of these studies, Pandey and Rastogi (1979) reported that High Mach scorers were significantly more likely to engage in ingratiating behaviors in hypothetical job interviews than were those who scored low. Ln the second study Pandey (1981) found only one significant relationship between Machiavellianism and one element of ingratiating behavior in an experiment in which engineering students with high or low Mach scores were exposed to high or low conditions of organizational formalization. In both of these studes, means for all subjects were not stated. The reported range of Mach IV scores was 20 to 140. Apparently, the researchers did not add the constant of 20 to individual Mach IV scores as recommended by Chris- tie and Geis (19701, m a h g difficult comparisons of scores with other studies.

Using a simulation which described an indvidual who achieves a pro-


motion through merit or influence, Pinto and Kanekar (1990) also focused on an Inhan sample. With graduate students as subjects, these researchers found that women who scored low showed higher ethical sensitivity than -

women who scored high and that, contrary to expectations, High Mach scar- ing men showed greater ethcal sensitivity than did low scoring men. While mean Mach V scores of 81.0 for men and 81.9 for women were reported in this study, the range is reported as 20 to 140. Once again, making comparisons of Mach scores from this study with those reported in other studies is problematic.

A recent experiment on Machiavelhan behavior and manipulation strategies was conducted by O'Connor and Simms (1990) with University Col- lege Dublin students as subjects. While O'Connor and Simms reported no significant sex differences in Mach scores, they did find a higher mean self- disclosure score for Bgh-Mach scoring women than for low-scoring women. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated a positive correlation between scores on Machiavehanism and w h g n e s s to disclose to individuals target- ed to be influenced for women but not for men, and the researchers concluded that self-revelation may be uthzed by K g h Mach-scoring women to manipulate others in influence attempts. Since manipulation is a key element of Machiavehan behavior and a major concern for individuals endeavoring to understand ways of doing business in other countries, this study is especially intriguing.

A study conducted in Israel focused on team management and practicing managers (Jaffe, Nebenzahl, & Gotesdyner, 1989). This research used teams involved in a computer business-game simulation and found that "success and task orientation are independent of Mach scores" (p. 823). It should be noted that team means rather than individual scores were reported for Machiavehanism. This research contrahcts the findings of Jones and White (1983) relative to the effectiveness of High Mach scorers in groups. With the recent emphasis on team management in business worldwide, it was surpris- ing to find that this was apparently the only study conducted outside the USA which focused on work teams and Mach scores.

Only two single-nation studies outside of the USA which explored possible relationships of Machiavehanism to career success could be located. Ln a pilot study involving 22 Hong Kong bankers who were also enrolled in graduate study, Siu (1993) reported no significant relationships among Ma- chiavellianism, job satisfaction, and income. In a subsequent survey of 50 Hong Kong banking managers, Siu and Tam (1995) reported a weak but significant relationship between lower Mach IV scores and higher positions. Also, these researchers found that Mach scores were significant prehctors of satisfaction with jobs. For this study, Siu and Tam reported a mean Mach IV score of 81.9. These two researchers argued that the relatively low scores

298 J. B. CORZINE

for the Hong Kong bankers may be due in large measure to the conservative and structured nature of banking organizations. It should be noted that the response rate for this research was only 16.9%, and no attempt to identlfy characteristics of respondents versus nonrespondents was reported.

Cross-national Studies There are eight cross-national studies identified for this category. One

of these studies examined the dimensionality of the Mach IV with Taiwanese and US students (Kuo & Marsella, 1977) and was discussed in the Scales section of this review. The relationship between Machiavelhanism and locus of control was explored in three cross-national studies. Like the single-nation studies reviewed in the precedmg section, results relative to Mach scores and locus of control were mixed. Maroldo and Flachmeier (1978) compared US and West German college women and found that the West German women scored significantly higher on a German translation of the Mach IV than did the US women on the English version (t=4.00, p < .01). No significant association of scores on the Mach IV and the locus of control scale was found.

In a study of West German and Italian undergraduates, Gah , Nigro, and Krampen (1986) reported negative relationships between Mach scores and internal locus of control for the total Itahan and German samples. Sig- nificant negative relationships were also found for Italian men and women as well as German women, but none between Mach scores and locus of control were reported for German men. These researchers reported total mean Mach scores of 85.6 for Italians and 81.4 for Germans, with the Italians scoring significantly higher on the Mach IV than the Germans. Consistent with many previous studies, men scored higher on the Mach scale than women. In recent research, Mudrack and Mason (1995) reported a positive relationship between Mach IV scores and external locus of control in a sample of US graduate and Canadian undergraduate business students. Also, men had higher Mach IV scores than women in this study. It should be noted that these researchers also reported other findings, including negative associations between Mach scores and scores on sensitivity to equity and positive relationships for Mach IV scores with ethical conflict, traditional orientation, and negative orientation.

Cross-national comparisons of Machiavellianism and achievement among students enrolled in US graduate business programs were made by Okanes and Murray (1982). These researchers found that Mach IV mean scores for Taiwanese MBA students (81.7) were higher than scores for MBA students from the Phhppines (76.0), the USA (75.0), Algeria (70.6), and Iran (68.6). Mean achievement scores for the Taiwanese were lower than were those of students from the other countries. The results of the Okanes and Murray


study regardmg achievement and Machivellianism are not consistent with the findings of Skinner (1981) reported in the single-nation section of this review.

Three addttional studtes explored cross-national ddf'erences in Mach scores. In early research, Starr (1975) found no significant ddferences in Mach IV scores among westernized and traditional Arab men and women students in Lebanon. He dtd report significantly higher Mach scores for the Arab subjects than for US subjects reported by Christie and Geis (1970), but he attributed the differences to higher scores for the Lebanese women. In a cross-national study on values, Mach IV scores for Chinese managers from Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China were compared with scores for managers from the United States (Ralston, Gustafson, Cheung, & Terpstra, 1993). These researchers reported significantly higher means for Hong Kong (M=89.5) managers and managers in the People's Republic of China (M=86.1), respectively, as compared to the mean scores for US managers (M=83.9), but no significant ddferences between managers in Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China were found. Scores in this study were not reported by sex. Another study (Ralston, Gustafson, Terpstra, Holt, Cheung, & Ribbens, 1993) compared Hong Kong and US MBA students with practicing managers from the United States and Hong Kong on the Ma- chiavehan dimension. Analysis indicated significantly higher mean Mach scores for US students (M=90.6) as compared to US managers (M=82.9) and for Hong Kong students (M=97.3) as compared to Hong Kong managers (M=90.7). Mean Mach scores were also significantly higher for Hong Kong MBA students as compared to US students and for Hong Kong managers relative to managers from the United States.

D~scus s ro~ The 30 single-nation and cross-national studtes reviewed here generally

indicate that, since Vleeming's (1979) literature review, the emphasis in research on Machiavehanism, with some exceptions, has shifted from theory confirmation relative to the Christie and Geis (1970) categories of Manipula- tion, Persuasiveness, and Persuasibihty (p. 290 ff.) to h l u n g Machiavelban- ism with other variables or comparing cultural or national groups on the Ma- chiavellian dimension.

According to Hunt and Chonko (1984), Mach IV scores greater than 100 are "generally considered to be very high" (p. 36) in the Machiavaan- ism literature while scores below 70 are low. From the present review of single-nation and cross-national studtes, we can identdy Indian men as well as Lndian lawyers, executives, and physicians (Gupta, 1987) as having very high Mach IV scores. Iranians were low scorers, and Alger~ans were very close to the Iranians (Okanes & Murray, 1982). On the Mach V, Canadian MBA stu-

3 00 J. B. CORZINE

dents and business professors had high scores (Siegel, 1973). The findmgs of the Gupta (1987) study relative to executives could be useful to practicing managers. Also, the high scores for lawyers could have relevance for business relationships as lawyers are frequently involved in negotiations and contracts and may serve as in-house counsels or as advisors to corporations as repre- sentatives of outside law firms. Canadian professors who are H ~ g h Mach scorers (Siegel, 1973) could be engaged in business through consulting activ- ities with various organizations while high-scoring MBA students may now be serving as managers. It could be presumed that managers d e a h g with individuals from high-scoring groups might need to be especially careful in ne- gotiating sessions, insist on written contracts, and monitor contract compli- ance closely. However, it should be noted that the range of scores is also im- -

portant, and typically there are individual low scorers in any group. Consid- erable caution should be exercised in making generalizations based on the above referenced studies. Addtional research is needed to assess both national differences in Machiavellian scores on a broader scale and to delineate possible differences within various nations before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Also, further research should focus on Machiavellian behavior in actual bargaining sessions in settings outside of the USA. Such research could involve field studies centering on strategies used by High Mach-scoring nego- tiators and outcomes of particular strategies. In addition, studes which examine interactions among employees of the same company with multination- al locations should be conducted. The results of such research could yield important information concerning the relationship of nationality and occupation to Machiavehan behavior. Field studies involving work teams should also be undertaken to examine possible effects of High Mach-scoring team members on team outcomes.

This review indicates that the cross-national literature on Machiavelhan- ism is relatively sparse, and outcome variables were not measured in several of the studies reviewed here. Further research involving cross-national subjects should be undertaken. Adler (1983) has noted the scarcity of comparative international studes in the literature on management and contends that lack of funding is a major obstacle in conducting such research. An addtion- a1 difficulty relative to research on Machiavellianism may involve gaining ac- cess to organizations outside the USA for appropr~ate field studies. Such research could require the cooperation of scholars from different parts of the globe as well as senior management.

It should be noted that only two studies in this review (i.e., Siu, 1993; Siu & Tam, 1995) have examined possible direct relationships between Ma- chiavehanism and individual job performance or success, and results have been mixed. Results for US studies have also been inconsistent (e.g., Hunt


& Chonko, 1984). At the present time, no definitive statement can be made regardmg the connection between Machiavellianism and job performance, and additional research would be appropriate in both non-US single-nation and cross-national settings. Further, this review suggests that comparative organizational context was considered in only one experimental study (i.e., Pan- dey, 1981). Christie and Geis (1970) argued thar "latitude for improvisa- tion" is a necessary condition for the success of High Mach persons. The findings of a recent study of US stockbrokers and telecommunications salespersons in which High Mach persons outperformed their Low Mach counterparts in the broker-dealer organizations but did significantly less well in the highly bureaucratic telephone company (Schdtz, 1993) support the Christie and Geis contention and suggest the need to examine organizational context as it relates to Machiavell~an~sm in settings other than the USA.

The current review of single-nation and cross-national studies raises other issues which need to be resolved; some of these questions were f~rsc raised by Vleeming (1979) while others are new. It is dear that a samphg bias exists in the studies analyzed here. Of the 30 single-nation and cross-national studies, 21 tested students exclusively. Only seven studies included Machiavehanism of managers, and one study focused on first-line supervisors. One study identified nation&ty only. Further, banking represented the only specific occupation identified in any of these studies involving practicing managers (cf. Siu, 1993; Tam & Siu, 1995). As part of a research agenda, appropriate studies should be replicated and extended using men and women employed in managerial positions in specific occupational categories such as finance, accounting, human resources, and marketing.

Further, results relative to Mach scores and sex reported in this review are inconsistent, with some researchers reporting higher Mach scores for men and others reporting no significant differences between men and women. Many studies involving US subjects have found Mach mean scores to be significantly higher for men (e.g., Christie & Geis, 1970) although some researchers have reported that US women had higher Mach scores (e.g., Hunt & Chonko, 1984). O'Connor and Simms' (1990) Irish study indicates that HIgh Mach scoring women may use different manipulation strategies than HIgh Mach scoring men; this study should be extended to an actual organizational setting.

Operational definitions of Machiavehanism should also be analyzed more closely. Internal consistency measures should be routinely reported, and the reliabihty of translations of well-known questionnaires like the Mach IV should not simply be assumed to be equivalent to that of the original Christie and Geis (1970) English language version. Scoring should be consistent so that comparisons may be made. A major concern raised in h s review relates to measurement issues relative to the scales used to measure

3 02 J. B. CORZINE

Machiavelhanism. Factor analyses and other analyses of questionnaires used in studies of Machiavelhanism reviewed here (Ahmed & Stewart, 1981; Khne & Cooper, 1984; Kuo & Marsella, 1977; Ray, 1983) suggested that Machia- vehanism may be a multidimensional construct which requires different measurement approaches from those currently in use.

Vleeming (1979) noted the inconsistencies in the literature he reviewed concerning the relationship between Machiavelhanism and locus of control and Machiavellianism and achievement motivation. The single-nation and cross-national studes reviewed here also show disparity relative to locus of control (cf. gall^ & Nigro, 1983; Gah , Nigro, & Krampen, 1986; Maroldo & Flachmeier, 1978; Mudrack & Mason, 1995; Prociuk & Breen, 1976; Vl- eeming, 1984), achievement (cf. Okanes & Murray, 1982; Skinner, 1981), and authoritarianism (cf. Klein, 1983; Vleeming, 1984). Additional non-US single-nation and cross-national research in these areas is also recommended.

REFERENCES

ADLER. N. J . (1983) Cross-cultural management research: the ostrich and the trend. Academy of lMarzagement Review, 8, 226-232.

~ M E D , S. M. S., &STEWART, R. A. C. (1981) Factor analysis of h e Machiavehan scale. Social Behavior and Personalitv, 9( I), 113-115.

CHRISTIE, R., &GEIS, F. L. (1970) Studies itr Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. GABLE, M., HOLLON, C., &DANGELLO. F. (1990) Relating locus of conrrol to Machiavehanism

and managerial achievement. Psychological Reports, 67, 339-343. GALLI, 1.. & NIGRO, G. (1983) Relationship between Machiavellianism and external conrrol

among Italian undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 53, 1081-1082. GALLI, I.. NIGRO, G., &KRAMPEN, G. (1986) Multidimensional locus of control and Machiavel-

lianism in Italian and Wesc German students: similarities and dkferences. Applied Psy- chology A12 Intenrational Review, 35, 453-461.

GUPTA, M. D. (1987) Machiavellianism of different occupational groups. Indian Journal of Psy- chometry and Edzrcation, 18(2), 61-66.

HE GAR^, W. H. (1995) Effects of group norms and learning on unethical decision behavior. Psychological Reports, 76, 593-594.

HOFSTEDE, G. (1983) The culcural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89.

HOFSTEDE. G. (1985) The interaction between national and organizational value systems. Jour- tzal oflMarzagernent Studies, 22, 347-357.

HUNT, S. D.. &CHONKO, L. B. (1984) Marketing and Machiavellianism. Journal of Marketing, 48, 30-42.

HUNTER, J. E., BOSTER, F. J., & GERBING, D. W. (1982) Machiavellian beliefs and personality: construct invalidity of the Machiavellianism dimension. jour?zal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1293-1305.

JAFFE, E. D., NEBENZAHL, I. D., & GOTESDYNER. H. (1989) Machiavellianism, task orientation, and team effectiveness revisited. Psychological Reports, 64, 819-824.

KLINE, P. (1983) Machiavellianism and authoritarianism. Personality Study and Group Behavior, 3, 6-11,

KLINE. P.. &COOPER. C. (1984) An investigation of the items in the Machiavellian scales. The Iourtral of So&! Psycbologv, 124, 251 -252.

Kuo, H. K., &MARSELM, A. J . (1977) The meaning and measurement of Machiavellianism in Chinese and American college students. Journal of Soional Psychology, 101, 165-173.

MACHIAVELLI, N. (1513/1965) The prince. ( M a n Gilbert, transl.) In Chief works and others. Durham, NC: Duke Univer. Press. Pp. 5-95.

MACHIAVELLIANISM AND MANAGEMENT 3 03

MACHIAVELLI, N. (1531/1965) Discoirrses on thehrst ten books of Titzis Livius. ( M a n Gilbert, transl.) In Chief works and others. Durham, NC: Duke Univer. Press. Pp. 175-532.

MAROLDO, G. K, &FLACHMEIER, L. C. (1978) Machiavehanism, external control, and cognitive styles of American and West German co-eds. Psychological Reports, 56, 37-38.

MCLEAN, l? k, &JONES, D. G. B. (1992) Machiavellianism and business education. Psychologi- cal Reports, 71, 57-58.

MUDRACK, I? E., &MASON, E. S. (1995) Extending the Machiavellianism construct: a brief measure and some unexplored relationships. ]ounzal of Sonal Behavior and Personality, 10, 187-200.

NEDD, A. N. B., &MARSH, N. R. (1979) Social traditionahsm and personality: an empirical investigation of the interrc.lat~onships between social values and personality attributes. Inter- national Journal ofPsycho/o&v, 1 4, 73-82.

O'CONNOR, E. M., &SIMMS, C M (1990) Self-revelation as manipulation: the effects of sex and Machiavellianism on seli-disclosure. Sonal Behavior and Personality, 18(1), 95-100.

OKANES, M. M., &MURRAY, I . W. (1982) Machiavellian and achievement orientation among foreign and American masters students in business administration. Psychological Reports, 50, 519.526

PANDEY, J. (1981) Eficts of Machiavehanism and degree of organizational formahzation on in- grarlarlon Psychologia, 24, 41-46.

PANDEY, J., &RASTOGI, R. (1979) Machiavellianism and ingratiation. The Jo~rrnal of Social Pry- chology, 108, 221-225.

Pmrrz, E. (1989) Psychometric investigation of the Mach IV Scale measuring Machiavellian- ism. Psychological Reports, 64, 963-970.

PINTO, A. J., & KANEKAR, S. (1990) Social perception as a €unction of Machiavellianism. The Jounral of Sonal Psychology, 130, 755-762.

PROCIUK. T. J., & BREEN. L. J . (1976) Machiavellianism and locus of control. lournal of Sonal Psychology, 98, 141-142.

RALSTON, D. A., GUSTUSON, D. J., CHEUNG, F. M., & TERPSTRA, R. H. (1993) Differences in mana erial values: a study of U.S., Hong Kong, and PRC managers. jozirnal of Itlterna- tionaf~zisiness Studies, 24, 249-275.

&TON, R. H., GUSTAFSON. D. I.. TERPSTRA, R. H., HOLT, D. A., CHEUNG, F., &RIBBENS, B. A. (1993) The impact of m3nngerial values on decision-making behaviour: a comparison oE the United States and Hong Kong. Asia PacifcJournal of Management, 10, 21-37.

Y J. . 1 9 8 3 Defective ~ a b & r y of the Machiavellianism scale. The Jorimal ofSo&l Psychol- ogy, 119, 291-292.

ROBERTSON. D. C. (1993) Empiricism in business ethics: sugpc5red research directions. ]ounzal o f Brisiness Ethics, 12, 585-599.

SCHULTZ, C. J. (1993) Situational and dispositional predictors of performance: a test of the hy- pothesized Machiavellianism X structure interaction among sales persons. ]ozirnal of Ap- plied Sonal Psychology, 23, 478-498.

SLEGEL. J. I? (1973) Machiavehanism, MBA's and managers: leadership correlates and social- ization effects. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 404-411.

Sru, W. (1993) Machiavellianism and bankers in Hong Kong: some results of a pilot study. Jotrrnal of Professional Seruices MarketLrg, 10, 201-207.

SIU, W., &TAM, K (1995) Machiavellianism and Chinese banking executives in Hong Kong. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 13(3), 15-21.

SKINNER. N. F. (1981) Personality correlares of Machiavellianism: 11. Machiavellianism and achevement motivation and business. Sonal Behavior and Personality, 9, 155-157.

SKINNER, N. F. (1982) Personality correlates of Machiavehanism: 111. A simulation procedure for i d e n t i f y q High Machs. Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 197-199.

SKINNER, N. F. (1983) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism: V. Machiavellianism, extraversion, and toughnundedness in business. Sonal Behavior and Personality, 11, 29-32.

SKINNER, N. F., GIOKAS, J. A,, & HORNSTEIN, H. A. (1976) Personality correlates of Machiavellj- anism: I. Consensual validation. Social Behavior and Personal~ty, 4, 273-276.

SNODGRASS, C. R., & S E W . U. (1989) The cultural components of strategic decis ion-mahg in the international arena. In A. R Negandhi, & A. Savara (Eds.), Infernafiorlal Strategic Management, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Pp . 141-154.

3 04 J. B. CORZINE

ST-. I? D. (1975) Machiavellianism among traditional and Westernized Arab students. lournal of Sorial Psychology, 96, 179-185.

VLEEMINC, R G. (1979) Machiavehanism: a preliminary review. Psychological Reports, 44, 295- 3 10.

VLEEMINC, R. G. (1984) The nornorhetical network of a Machiavellianism scale. Psychological Reports, 54, 617-618.

WILLIAMS, M. C., HAZELTON, V., &RENSHAW, S. (1975) The measurement of Machiavellianism: a factor analytic and correlational study of Mach IV and Mach V. Speech Monographs, 42, 151-159.

machiavellianism and management: a review of single-nation studies exclusive of the usa and...

Documents