Narcissism and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Is there a difference between organizational an d individual OCB for narcissists, and is Narcissism related to any of both
Thesis, final version
University of Amsterdam; Amsterdam Business School, 30 June 2014
Course: Msc. In Business Studies – Leading and Management
Name: Dave Koomen
Student Number: 6055222 Supervisor: Dr. Belschak
Index
Abstract: 3
1. Introduction: 4
2. Model, Hypotheses and Literature Review: 9
Narcissism: 10
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: 12
Mediators: 13 Pride: 14 Hubris: 14 Organizational Commitment: 15 Leader-member exchange: 16 Colleague-member exchange: 17 Choice of mediators: 18
Model and Hypotheses: 19
Hypotheses from narcissism to mediators: 20
Hypotheses from mediators to affiliative and challenging OCB: 23 Hypotheses from narcissism to affiliative and challenging OCB: 27
3. Method and Data: 31
Method: 32
Data measurement: 33
Data processing: 36
4. Results: 37
Reliability: 37
Means, standard deviations and correlations: 38
Mediation model: 39 5. Discussion: 42 6. Conclusion: 50 Reference List: 52 Appendices: 63 Survey 1 Survey 2
Acknowledgements:
I would also like to express my appreciation for the help I received while writing this thesis from mister Belschak. I received helpful feedback and how to interpret the data I found. Next, I would like to thank the companies that helped me by filling in the questionnaires. I am grateful for the returned questionnaires I received. I could have written a complete thesis based on the excuses I received from so many companies why they would not, or could not, fill in the questionnaires. Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting me throughout my complete study, and the finalization of my thesis.
Abstract:
This study sets out to find out if there is a relation between narcissism and affiliative or challenging organizational behaviors. Mediators such as pride, hubris, organizational commitment, leader-member exchange and colleague-member exchange are recognized. Data gathering was done by sending and handing out questionnaires. The results of this study show that there might be relations between narcissism and affiliative and challenging organizational citizenship behavior, and that this relation is mediated by the variables recognized. However, the research question could not be answered, since most of the proposed relations are found insignificant due to the small amount of returned questionnaires.
Introduction:
A recent study has shown that during recessions the growth of the character trait narcissism is tempered. People who enter adulthood during a recession are less likely to become narcissists (Bianchi, 2014). This study has shed new light on this character trait, which is under-studied, in certain fields, when comparing to the other two dark personality traits. There are three dark personality traits; Machiavellianism, Subclinical Psychopathy and Narcissism (Paulus and Williams, 2002). One should note that these three are not the only ‘dark’ or ‘bad’ character traits, but the ones that receive most attention (Paulhus and
Williams, 2002). Machiavellianism was first recognized by Christie and Geis (1970), based on Machiavelli’s own books. Machiavellianism is ‘the manipulative personality’
characterized by a ‘cold and manipulative fashion’ (Paulus and Williams, 2002; Christie and Geis, 1970). Individuals that show a Machiavellian trait, make sure that they benefit most of the time in any given situation, where the manipulated ones do not benefit (Wilson and Miller, 1996). Subclinical psychopathy in the ‘normal non-criminal’ population was first recognized by Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996, p. 516).People who show psychopathy as a trait are likely to show ‘high impulsivity, callousness, interpersonal manipulation, exploitation, and
stimulation-seeking’ as well as showing ‘low empathy, anxiety, and remorse’ (Hodson, Hogg and MacInnis, 2009, p. 686). Lastly there is the narcissism trait. This trait was recognized by Raskin and Hall in 1979, and based on a series of questions given to students. Raskin and Hall (1979) recognize characteristics such as ‘grandiose sense of self-importance’, ‘fantasies of power’ and a ‘lack of empathy’, among others, for narcissists. The term narcissism is based on a hunter described in Greek mythology. The hunter, narcissus, was loved by many males and females, he however never returned the love of anyone. One day, when he was hunting he came across a very clear river where he saw his own reflection. He fell in love with his own
reflection and did not leave the riverside. He eventually died, as he did not eat or drink anything.
A love so strong toward one self is considered a negative trait, and is considered ‘socially malevolent’ (Paulus and Williams, 2002, p.557). Within organizations negative behavior is often expressed or named as counterproductive work-behavior. Fox, Spector and Miles (2001) studied counterproductive work-behavior (CWB) and summarize that over the course of multiple studies, amongst different authors, the factors related to CWB have been recognized. Some of the factors that are considered counterproductive are sabotage, antisocial behavior, and bullying amongst others (Fox, Spector and Miles, 2001). Fox, Spector and Miles (2001) state that there are probably two different forms of CWB, ‘those targeting the organization and those targeting other persons in the organization’ (p. 292).
When speaking about traits that are considered negative, which is the case for
narcissism, Machiavellianism, and subclinical psychopathy, it is often considered to only have negative effects within organization. Therefore, a high number of studies have been done to relate these traits with CWB, which is considered as the expression of negative traits within an organization. Counterproductive work-behavior has a positive counterpart, though. The positive counterpart of CWB is called Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB).
Organizational citizenship behavior is often defined as ‘individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization’ (Organ, 1988, p. 4). The antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior were first studied by Smith, Organ and Near (1983). They found that there are two ‘fairly distinct classes of citizenship behavior’ (Smith, Organ and Near, 1983, p. 661). They called these ‘altruism’ and ‘generalized compliance’. Altruism is more focused on specific persons (colleagues), and giving those persons assistance or help with tasks (Smith, Organ and Near, 1983, p. 661-662). Generalized
compliance is different from altruism as it does not directly focus other persons, but is rather a feeling of good behavior. Smith, Organ and Near (1983) describe it as a form of OCB where the individual feels the need to behave ‘right and proper’ (p.662) for the organization or ‘system’. The fact that there are two different forms of OCB is also underlined by Organ and Ryan (1995). They agree with Smith, Organ and Near (1983) that OCB is subject to many different factors. Throughout the years the terms, for the different forms of OCB, first
brought by Smith, Organ and Near (1983), started to change and be renamed among scholars. Van Dyne et al (1995) first propose to recognize OCB as affiliative and promotive, as is seconded by Organ (1997). The change of the name has much to do with in-role and extra-role behaviors. This will however not be explained in depth, as it is of less interest for this study. For more information about in-role and extra-role behaviors see Van Dyne et al (1995), Organ (1997), Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Organ (1997) also speaks of ‘challenging’ behaviors, and the differences they have with OCB. Challenging behaviors ‘often pit brother against brother’ (p.92) as Organ (1997) states, indicating a negative tone to these challenging behaviors. Van Dyne and LePine (1998) are one of the first to study these challenging
behaviors, or voice as they call it, to see if it can be considered as a form of OCB. They find that challenging behaviors can also be considered a form of OCB (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Graham and Van Dyne (2006) also study the two most distinct forms of OCB. They name it ‘Affiliative-promotive behavior’ and ‘change-oriented-promotive behavior’ (Graham and Van Dyne, 2006, p.92). Despite all recognizing the different forms of OCB, and the antecedents and factors they encompass, scholars have yet to agree on the names for the two different, forms of OCB. The fact that scholars have yet to agree on naming the forms of OCB is described by Choi (2007). What these two forms of OCB encompass has not changed much since the recognition of two different forms, by Smith, Organ and Near (1983). One form is focused on others and colleagues, by helping them or having a good relationship (Smith,
Organ and Near, 1983). In this study that form of OCB will be referred to as affiliative organizational citizenship behavior (AOCB). AOCB is the form of OCB that focusses on colleagues, helping and relations. The other form of OCB is more focused on the
organization, and ‘improving work performance’ (Choi, 2007, p.468). This form of OCB is less likely to positively influence the relationship with others in the organization. Van Dyne and LePine (1998) see this form of OCB as disrupting to the status quo within an
organization. Therefore, in this study, the second form of OCB will be referred to as
challenging organizational citizenship behavior (COCB). COCB is focusing the organization and system. Both forms of OCB will be described more in depth in the literature review.
In contrast of Machiavellianism, no studies currently have been done to the
relationship that Narcissism has with either affiliative organizational citizenship behavior or challenging organizational citizenship behavior (Judge, LePine and Rich, 2006). The results of the Machiavellianism-OCB relation are not unambiguous. This leaves room to further explore our understanding of a possible narcissism-OCB relation, as is proposed by Bolino, Turnley and Niehoff (2004). Despite the correlation between Machiavellianism and
narcissism (McHoskey, 1995, Paulus and Williams, 2002, and O’Boyle et al, 2012), it is not a perfect correlation. This means that the results of a narcissism-OCB study might differ from a Machiavellianism-OCB study. A study toward the narcissism-OCB relation gives more insight in the motives why narcissists might engage in organizational citizenship behavior. According to Belschak et al (2014) some moderators might be in place in the relation between OCB and Machiavellianism. It therefore can be expected that there are also mediators in a relation that Narcissism has with OCB. Therefore, some mediators are recognized within this model, and an understanding of the effect these mediators have on OCB are tried to be created. Narcissism is rooted by a focus on a ‘grandiose sense of self-importance’ and a ‘lack of empathy’ toward others (Raskin and Hall, 1979). It can therefore be expected that
narcissism might have different effects on OCB shown toward others (AOCB), than OCB shown toward the organization or system (COCB). Therefore the research question this study will try to answer, is as follows; ‘How does narcissism relate to organizational citizenship behavior, split up in affiliative and challenging, and is this relationship for either for these forms, influenced by certain mediators?’
In order to answer this question a survey amongst employees has been done in a number of organizations. It is important to recognize that this research has focused on
employee narcissism, not leader narcissism. Next to that, two employees were needed to fill in one data-set. Reason behind this is the fact that self-ratings of OCB tend to be higher (Organ and Ryan, 1995). In other words, when you ask someone to assess their own organizational citizenship behavior, you will most likely receive elevated numbers and results. Combining this with the grandiose sense that narcissists have about themselves, it was chosen to have the organizational citizenship behavior of an employee assessed by a co-worker. Narcissists could be able to rate themselves even better. The sample in this study consisted of 57 filled in questionnaires. The low number of response is due to the fact that in order to fill in one survey, two employees were needed. Most organizations stated that they had no time to distribute these surveys amongst their employees, and that it would become too time-consuming.
The next paragraph of this study will encompass the model that will be used to answer the research question, the hypotheses and the literature review. The third paragraph will consist of the method and data. In this paragraph a more in-depth explanation will be given about the data-gathering and how the data was found and generated. The paragraph following will be the results, based on the data and model. The fifth paragraph will discuss these results and compare them to the hypotheses based on the literature. Recommendations for future research will be provided for the hypotheses where it is considered appropriate. Also some
minor recommendations, when working with narcissists, and how to make sure they engage in OCB, will be provided. The paragraph after the results will be containing the conclusion.
Model, Hypotheses and Literature Review:
This paragraph will contain the literature review, model and hypotheses. First, an understanding of Narcissism, organizational citizenship behavior, both affiliative and
challenging, and definitions will be stated. The mediators recognized in this study will follow. A figure of this model will be presented, as this makes the explanation about the hypotheses easier, and helps readers visualize the model this study will be following. After the model is shown, the hypotheses and theoretical relations, as shown in the model, will be discussed.
First, as briefly discussed in the introduction, it should be noted that there are no known studies done toward a narcissism-OCB relation at the moment of this research (Judge, LePine and Rich, 2006). In other words, no similar studies have been proposed or found at this point in time. However, there are multiple studies done toward narcissism and CWB and Machiavellianism and CWB/OCB. Combining the results of these studies, it is tried to create an understanding or expectation of the narcissism-OCB relation.
Organizational citizenship behavior is on the positive side of the coin, where counterproductive work-behavior is the other side. However, as stated by Spector and Fox (2002), OCB is measured using different questions and variables than CWB does. Dalal (2005) adds to this that CWB and OCB are not perfectly negatively related. In other words, it does not mean that if someone shows signs of counter-productive work behavior, he or she is unable to show organizational citizenship behavior. Yet, looking at the fact that CWB is the counterpart of OCB to some height, some expectations will be based on research done on the narcissism-CWB relation. Meurs et al (2013) studied the narcissism-CWB relation. They,
unlucky enough, state that also few studies have been done to the narcissism-CWB relation. Yet, the few studies that have been done toward the narcissism-CWB relation (O’Boyle et al, 2012, Meurs et al, 2013, and, Penney and Spector, 2002) found positive results. In other words, according to O’Boyle et al (2012), Meurs et al (2013) and, Penney and Spector (2002), narcissism leads to counterproductive work behavior. This could mean bad news for a
possible narcissism-OCB relation, if it was not for the studies done by Dalal (2005) and Spector and Fox (2002). The fact that narcissism is related to counter-productive work
behavior makes someone suspect that narcissists are unable to show organizational citizenship behavior. However, not all studies are done that same, as there are two forms of CWB and two forms of OCB. Next to that, the definitions and measurement of OCB or CWB might differ amongst studies. Therefore, before the literature-review is continued and hypotheses are stated the antecedents and factors of OCB, AOCB, COCB, narcissism and other key-variables will be discussed and cleared up.
Narcissism:
As already briefly explained, narcissism was first recognized by Raskin and Hall in 1979. They ‘found’ and confirmed this trait by giving a survey, checking for this trait, to a large group of students. The trait as we currently recognize it was not completely derived from this study, but Raskin and Hall (1979) were the first to successfully test narcissism. Frued (1914) was one of the first to recognize narcissism as a trait itself. Originally a narcissist was seen as ‘a person who treats his own body in the same way in which the body of a sexual object is ordinarily treated—who looks at it, that is to say, strokes it and fondles it till he obtains complete satisfaction through these activities’ (p. 102). Narcissism was seen by Frued (1914) as a form of perversion, and was mostly studied by Frued in a sexual way. Despite the ‘sexual’ focus by Frued (1914), the focus on the ‘self’ of a narcissist is
recognized. Frued (1914) also already speaks briefly about the ego of narcissists. Kohut (1966) further deepens the understanding of narcissism, and shows that narcissism is not merely a trait focused on sexual relations. It is shown that narcissism is also related with a lower amount of empathy. Kohut expands his own research in 1972 and shows that narcissism is not only a product of ‘regression’ and that it can be ‘adaptive’ and ‘valuable’. Raskin and Hall (1979) were one of the first to compile a list of eight characteristics of narcissism. A ‘grandiose sense of self-importance’, ‘fantasies of power’ and a ‘lack of empathy’ were already introduced. ‘Exhibitionism’, replying to criticism with ‘feelings of rage, inferiority, shame, humiliation or emptiness’, a form of ‘entitlement’, ‘exploitativeness’ and
‘relationships vacillate between extremes’ form the other characteristics according to Raskin and Hall (1979). ‘Exploitativeness’ is a characteristic that is shared by Machiavellianism (McHoskey, 1995, p.755). Raskin and Terry (1988) test the characteristics of narcissism recognized by Raskin and Hall (1979) and find that the identified characteristics can indeed be seen as the characteristics of narcissism. Raskin and Terry (1988) also provide 25 other high scoring characteristics of narcissism. Most of these, such as aggressive, impatient, self-centered and rude, can be considered negative.
There is no standard definition of narcissism, as researchers and scholars all seem to give their own twist to it. However, most definitions entail the characteristics described above. The definition of narcissism that will be used in this study is based on the paper of Stucke and Sporer (2002). Narcissism entails a trait where individuals show
‘self-aggrandizement and fantasies about unlimited ability and power, and they react with rage, shame, or humiliation when their self-esteem is threatened’ it comes with ‘a feeling of
grandiosity used to bolster and enhance a rather fragile self-esteem’ (Stucke and Sporer, 2002, p. 510).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
One other important variable in this study is organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior will be split up in two different variables this study, affiliative OCB and challenging OCB. Smith, Organ and Near (1983) recognized and named the ‘earliest’ versions of the two forms of OCB, and called them ‘altruism’ and ‘generalized compliance’. Not only did they find the two different forms of OCB, they were also the first to recognize OCB as a form of behavior in general. The book written by Organ (1988) is often seen as the first book explaining OCB as we see it in current days. OCB is defined as
‘individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the
organization’ by Organ (1988, p. 4). This definition shows that there are three aspects which are vital to OCB. The first is the fact that OCB is discretionary behavior, which means that it is not covered in the job description and is an individual’s own choice to engage in. Secondly there is the fact that one cannot be forced to engage in OCB behavior. Lastly there is the aspect that organizational citizenship behavior has to have a positive effect on the organization as a whole (Organ, 1988).
OCB can be split up in two different forms though (Smith, Organ and Near, 1983; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Van Dyne et al, 1995; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998; Graham and Van Dyne, 2006). The forms of OCB are called differently among studies, as was discussed by Choi (2007). Williams and Anderson (1991) were the first to distinguish the two forms of organizational citizenship behavior based on a focus on individuals and a focus on the organization. They called these forms of organizational citizenship behavior OCB-Individual and OCB-Organization. In short, OCB-I/ altruism/other names, focus on helping
others/colleagues and the relationship with them. OCB-O/general compliance/other names, focus on behaving ‘right and proper’ for the organization or system, and do not focus on
colleagues. However, OCB-I and OCB-O did not feel as complete names, as it left out a certain core for the behavior towards the organization or system (Organ, 1997). Therefore, since this study want to grasp the full essence of the forms of OCB, it was chosen to call the two forms Affiliative OCB and Challenging OCB, based on studies done by Van Dyne and LePine (1998), Van Dyne et al (1995), Graham and Van Dyne (2006) and Choi (2007). AOCB focuses on the individual and relations, and COCB on the organization.
One could argue that the distinction of AOCB and COCB is excessive. However, the fact that there were indecisive results in the Machiavellianism-OCB relation can imply that there are differences in the relation that narcissism might have with either AOCB or COCB. This is based on the fact that Machiavellianism and Narcissism tend to go together
(McHoskey, 1995; Paulus and Williams, 2002; and O’Boyle et al, 2012) and the fact that the results between Machiavellianism-OCB/AOCB/COCB were mixed (Becker and O’Hair, 2007; Zettler and Solga, 2013; Belschak et al, 2014; Dahling et al, 2009). In other words, if AOCB and COCB would be measured in one ‘big’ OCB variable, it could be the case that no relation would be found, whilst there is a relation between narcissism and COCB, for
example. Therefore, OCB is split up in AOCB and COCB.
Mediators:
Belschak et al (2014) studied the Machiavellianism-OCB relation and found that certain moderators could influence the relation. Seeing that this study is the first of its kind, no moderators will be recognized. Moderators can be helpful explaining relations, by seeing if certain moderator variables alter the relation between two constructs, but at this point in time it is not sure that there even is a relation. Therefore, as this is the first study, only mediators will be recognized. In contrast with moderators, they could help explain a relation, if one is found between narcissism and OCB. In other words, if there is a relation between narcissism
and OCB, these mediators stand ‘between’ them and help clarify the relation (Baron and Kenny, 1986). In this study a total of 5 possible mediator variables will be recognized next to the direct relations to AOCB and COCB. These mediator variables are; Pride, Hubris,
Organizational Commitment, Leader-member exchange and Colleague-member exchange.
Pride:
Pride can be considered a positive trait, as it can motivate and bring joy to an
individual (Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi, 2004; Lewis, 2000). Pride is focused on an action and the feeling of accomplishment (Lewis, 2000). Pride is a feeling that happens when that feeling of success is felt, after a positive outcome, which is an effect from one’s own effort (Michie, 2009). Pride is defined as an emotion, ‘generated by appraisals that one is
responsible for a socially valued outcome or for being a socially valued person’ (Mascolo and Fisher, 1995 in Michie, 2009). Pride is mostly felt when someone in the social network of an individual praises them about something (Michie, 2009). Pride can be found in the tale of narcissus, as he was so filled with pride when looking at himself, he decided to look at his own image till his death.
Hubris:
The second mediator, hubris, is a form of pride, but in the contrary of ‘general’ pride, is considered a negative trait. It means that someone is to pride (Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi, 2004; Lewis, 2000) and must be avoided. According to Lewis (2000), hubris grow when someone sees their so-called global-selves as successful. When someone has a high level of hubris, it can be associated with grandiosity, a characteristic of narcissism, or narcissism in general (Morrison, 1989). Individuals with a high level of hubris can also feel god-like and above others (Michie, 2009). Where pride is focused on a single action and the
effort the individual put in it (Lewis, 2000; Michie, 2009), hubris are focused on the global self. For example, someone built a shed in their garden. The feeling of accomplishment for this action can be considered pride, but if the construction of the shed makes someone feel better about themselves in global, it can be seen as hubris. Hubris can result in counter-productive work behavior, instead of contributing to organizational citizenship behavior (Lewis, 2000).
Organizational Commitment:
Thirdly, organizational commitment is recognized as a possible mediator. Organizational commitment can be seen as the commitment to an organization on a
psychological level, ‘that characterizes the employee’s relationship with the organization and has implications for the decision to continue or discontinue membership in the organization’ (Meyer, Allen and Smith, 1993, p. 539). Organizational commitment consists of different factors, all aiming at the commitment one has toward an organization. However, throughout the years the definition and characteristics of organizational commitment changed. Where in the early stages of organizational commitment studies only two forms of commitment were recognized, attitudinal and calculative (Mowday, Steers and Porter, 1979), there are now three forms making up organizational commitment (Meyer, Allen and Smith, 1993). As
organizational commitment is only a mediator in this study, the history of recognition and how it was formed to where it is now will be skipped. The three forms of organizational commitment as it is recognized at this point in time are; affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer, Allen and Smith, 1993). Affective commitment is about the emotional bond an employee has with an
organization. Employees feeling such a commitment want to stay within the organization and desire so (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer, Allen and Smith, 1993). Continuance commitment
encompasses a need to stay within an organization. Employees feeling such a need are often scared to be without a job or ‘lose’. Continuance commitment is often coupled with a form of win-lose calculation for employees. The cost of leaving (not committing) versus the profit one could get at another company (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer, Allen and Smith, 1993). Lastly there is normative commitment, which revolts around the feeling of an obligation for an employee. The employee feels obliged to commit to the organization. Meyer and Allen (1991) state that, for example, an employee feels that it is ‘right’ to stay within the organization and therefore does. This feeling might come from investments in training the organization has spent on the employee, or that the employee was taught by his/her parents that it is morally ‘right’ to stay with the/one organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer, Allen and Smith, 1993).
Leader-member exchange:
The leader-member exchange (LMX) is focused on the relation an employee has with their leader/supervisor/manager. Supervisor will from now on be used when regarding the leader, supervisor or manager of an employee. The LMX was first recognized by Dansereau, Graen, and Haga in 1975 as they found that supervisors were able to have a (professional) relationship with an employee, next to the supervision of other employee’s, and possible relations with them. They also found that the relation between an employee and his/her
supervisor was not a one-way street (Dansereau, Graen, and Haga, 1975), but goes both ways. Explaining the ‘exchange’ part in leader-member exchange. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) show that the LMX consists of three parts, the leader, the follower and the relationship (p. 223) The leader-member exchange is seen as a measure/construct for organizational behavior (Liden and Maslyn, 1998). This information will be described further in the hypotheses section below. However, as LMX is a measure between a supervisor and employee, it does not mean
that LMX is a measure solely aimed at work. An employee can also create a good exchange with their respective supervisor, outside of the workplace. For example, an employee can, by chance, live next door to their supervisor. This might lead to a good exchange, by being good neighbors. The leader-member exchange is the relation an employee has with their supervisor, this can be personally, professionally, or both (Liden and Maslyn, 1998). LMX has been studied in depth by Liden and Maslyn (1998), Grean and Uhl-Bien (1995), Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1975), Gerstner and Day (1997) and many others. But since LMX is not the main focus of this study, it is advised to look at those studies when more information, such as dyads, factors and underlying psychology, is required.
Colleague-member exchange:
As last, the colleague-member exchange was regarded as a possible mediator. The colleague-member exchange is a mediator, solely identified in this paper. No previous studies identify a variable as the colleague-member exchange, or in short CMX. The CMX is
measured the same way as the LMX, but the measurement will be discussed in the method and data section. However, it is striking to see that current studies do not recognize the
relationship with colleagues when it comes down to OCB, especially Affiliative OCB. Studies toward LMX have shown that the relation an employee has with their supervisor can impact many factors of professional life. LMX is positively related to, for example, satisfaction at work, the commitment, or the turnover intentions (Gerstner and Day, 1997). LMX is mostly focused at COCB, as it encompasses the relation with the supervisor of an employee. If one has a good relationship with his/her supervisor, they behave ‘right and proper’ for the relation they have with their supervisor. The supervisor is the humanized form of the organization or system. So doing good for the supervisor means, most of the time, doing good for the
colleagues. Current studies could make one believe that the relation between an employee and colleagues are not that important, as no studies have been done in this field. Yet, it can be expected that people will work more often with their direct colleagues than with their supervisors. Seeing how many benefits a high level of LMX brings, it can only be suspected that if one goes to work, looking forward to work with their colleagues, it will result in good behavior. It is expected that the proposed CMX will relate more to affiliative OCB than it will relate to challenging OCB, as AOCB is focused on the relationship one has with his or her colleagues.
Choice of mediators:
These five mediators were chosen for a number of reasons. First of all, these
mediators, except CMX, are all well-studied and proven variables. Pride and hubris are traits that every person has to some level. Organizational commitment, LMX and CMX are also all present for employees in organizations. People are committed to an organization to a certain level, have a relationship with their supervisor (except owners of organizations) and have a relationship with co-workers. Seeing that this study will be conducted among employees, it is expected that data can be gathered for all these variables. One could say that CMX is not apparent for some employees, as there are lone-wolfs in every company. But, this survey needs to be filled in by two employees, employee 1 and employee 2, who ‘rates’ the OCB of employee 1. Therefore, it is expected that lone-wolfs are automatically ruled out. Next to that, one of the prerequisites for being eligible to fill in this survey is that people work together. Secondly, these mediators have been chosen based on the literature available. Pride and hubris often go together with narcissism, but pride can also lead to OCB. Narcissists are often self-centered, so therefore it is interesting to see if they can commit to an organization, or build relations with their supervisors or colleagues. One could argue that more mediators should
have been recognized, as this is the first study of its kind, and a broad foundation for this field needs to be made. However, due to constrains in time and length of this thesis, a number of five mediators was the maximum that could be recognized.
Model and Hypotheses:
Taking narcissism, affiliative and challenging organizational citizenship behavior, and the mediators pride, hubris, organizational commitment, relationship with supervisor (LMX) and relationship with colleagues (CMX) in consideration when trying to create a model, it would look like figure 1.
Figure 1 shows the relations amongst the variables. Narcissism is the independent variable, and AOCB and COCB are the dependent variables. Pride, hubris, organizational commitment, LMX and CMX are the mediators as was already explained. In the model it is expected that narcissism relates to the mediators and to AOCB and COCB. The mediators relate to AOCB and COCB. In other words, all relations move to the right if one is looking to figure 1. In figure 1, all the relations have been numbered. For example; narcissism to pride is a1, hubris
to COCB is b21, or narcissism to AOCB is c2. The choice for numbering the relations this way makes it easier to formulate the hypotheses below, and makes it easier to process the data. The data-processing will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs, but for now the hypotheses will be stated.
Hypotheses from narcissism to mediators:
Because the study was done at employee level, it is expected that most people will show elevated levels of pride. Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) explain that frontline-personnel are quite often selected on pride, as organizations see it as a resource, which
motivates employees. On the other hand, Tangney (1999) shows that pride also has a negative side, as pride can lead to overconfidence and egoistic behavior. Narcissists on the other hand have a grandiose feeling of the self and feel very important. Based on the literature it can be expected that narcissists, who feel great about themselves, are often pride on their actions and feel successful. As explained Narcissus was so filled with pride over himself, he died at the water edge. Tracy and Robins (2007) also study the pride-narcissism relation and show that pride is positively correlated with narcissism. Based on this information and the studies discussed the first hypothesis will be;
H0a1: There is a significant relationship between narcissism and the pride of an employee.
Hubris are associated with narcissism by Lewis (2000) and Tracy et al (2009) amongst others. It is stated that hubris, ‘in extreme cases’ are related to narcissism (Lewis, 2000; Morrison, 1989). Tracy et al (2009) found that hubris are positively related to narcissism. Tracy and Robins (2007) also find that hubristic pride is positively correlated with narcissism. In other words, people that show hubristic pride (hubris), are more likely to be narcissists. Hubris are not automatically correlated to narcissism though, as hubris lack some of the core
components of a narcissistic personality, despite the likelihood of correlation (Chatterjee and Hambrick, 2007). However, if we switch the relation around from narcissism to hubris, it can be expected, based on the literature, that narcissism is likely to lead to hubristic pride. The hypothesis for this relation will be;
H0a2: There is a significant relationship between narcissism and the hubris of an employee.
Narcissism is a trait where the individual sees him or herself as most important. It can be assumed that for people whose life revolts mostly about themselves, find it hard to commit to an organization. However, on the other hand, if one’s colleagues or supervisor continually provide the individual with praise, a narcissist might be able to commit to an organization based on affective commitment. It is expected that narcissism is not associated with
continuance or normative commitment, but that is for others to study. For now, it is expected that narcissists are able to commit to an organization to some degree, but probably only if their egos are stroked enough.
H0a3: There is a significant relationship between narcissism and the organizational commitment of an employee.
The leader member exchange is about the relation an individual has with their
supervisor. In this study, the individual is a narcissist, so the relation a narcissist has with their supervisor will be tested. Most studies regarding narcissism and LMX are done from the supervisor perspective and there is a narcissistic leader and ´normal´ employee. In this study, the relation is the other way around, as there probably is a narcissistic employee and ‘normal’ leader. However, the LMX consists of three factors, as explained, the supervisor, the relation and the employee. As already explained, narcissists have a hard time to show empathy
that they also feel that their supervisor is willing to do tasks for them, and that they have a great relation. This leads to the following hypothesis.
H0a4: There is a significant relationship between narcissism and the relationship an employee has with their leader or supervisor.
Back, Egloff and Schmukle (2010) studied why narcissists are charming at first sight. They find that people like narcissist at first sight because it looks ‘popular’ and people like the ‘exploitativeness’ and ‘entitlement’ traits narcissists show at first sight. This proves that narcissists are able to have a form of a ‘good’ relation with peers. However, the results of Back, Egloff and Schmukle (2010) apply mostly on situation when people do not know narcissists yet. Paunonen et al (2006) describe that military cadets can or cannot see narcissists as good leaders. The relation or value they give the relation with the narcissistic individual depends on the type and level of narcissism an individual shows. In this study however, narcissists rate the relation they feel they have with their colleagues. It is expected that people with a higher level of narcissism have a worse relation with colleagues than those with a low/no level of narcissism. This is based on the fact that narcissism is considered a negative trait (Paulhus and Williams, 2002), and people tend to have worse relations with persons with a negative traits, as these traits are socially averse. Narcissists tend to have a low level or a lack of empathy (Raskin and Hall, 1979; Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001). This
undermines the possibility of creating good relationships with peers (Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001). This leads to the hypothesis that;
H0a5: There is no significant relationship between narcissism and the relationship an employee has with their colleagues.
Hypotheses from mediators to affiliative and challenging OCB:
The five hypotheses above were the ones from narcissism to the mediators. The hypothesis from the mediators toward AOCB and COCB will be discussed next. For each mediator the expectation for a relation to AOCB or COCB will be given, and both hypotheses per mediator will be provided.
Pride influences organizational citizenship behavior positively in the study of Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004). They show that when employees, specifically in a sales-department, are praised by their managers, it can lead to OCB. This has to do with the positive feeling individuals receive when indulging in these sort behaviors (Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi, 2004). On the other hand, Tangney (1999) has shown that pride can also lead to egoistic behavior, aimed at the self, and therefore probably not good for the organization as a whole. It is expected though, that the egoistic behavior resulting from pride, is more likely to result in hubris, and have a limited effect on the pride-AOCB/COCB
relation. Michie (2009) studies pride in leaders and the correlation with prosocial-behavior in an organizational environment. The result was that pride was positively related to ‘social justice’ and ‘altruism’ behaviors. Altruism, if one recalls, was proposed in this study as the original form of AOCB. Seeing that Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) find that praise from a manager, can lead to OCB. As described, if the supervisor is involved, the supervisor embodies the organization. Therefore, if one is willing to commit OCB after praise from a supervisor, it can be expected to probably a form of COCB. Michie (2009) found that pride could lead to the ‘altruism’ form of prosocial-behavior, or in other words AOCB. The hypotheses considering pride and AOCB/COCB are as follows;
H0b11: There is a significant relationship between the pride of an employee and COCB. H0b12: There is a significant relationship between the pride of an employee and AOCB.
Hubris is considered the excessive form of pride, as already explained. Not many studies have been done toward a hubris-AOCB/COCB relation (Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi, 2004). Brosi (2012) is one of the few that studied hubris, with regard to OCB, and in case of Brosi (2012), AOCB. It was found that hubris lead to a lower willingness in helping colleagues. In other words, hubris lead to a lower willingness to engage in AOCB, and therefore is negatively related. Lewis (2000) also discusses that hubris ‘interfere with
interpersonal relationships’ (p.3). Tracy et al (2009) also state that hubris can be characterized by ‘feelings of superiority and egotism’ (p.199). Hubristic pride could also lead to aggression, poor relationship quality and social phobia (Tracy et al, 2009). As AOCB mostly focusses at the relations with others, one can expect that hubris will lead to a lower level of AOCB. In the case of hubris-COCB no studies currently have been done. However, an assumption can be made on the literature discussed. Hubris is concerned with too much pride, and is considered undesirable or negative. OCB on the other hand, as has been shown, is considered positive and is desirable. Therefore, it is expected that if someone has a high level of hubris,
considered with over-confidence, aggression, poor relationship quality and a focus on the self (Lewis, 2000; Tracy et al, 2009), someone will not be able to show AOCB or COCB.
Hypotheses concerning AOCB and COCB will become;
H0b21: There is no significant relationship between the hubris of an employee and COCB. H0b22: There is no significant relationship between the hubris of an employee and AOCB.
Williams and Anderson (1991) were not only the first distinguishing the two forms of organizational citizenship behavior, but also tried to relate AOCB and COCB, or OCB-I and OCB-O as it was called in their study, to organizational commitment. They did not find a relation between organizational commitment and AOCB/COCB. Moorman, Niehoff and Organ (1993) underline this result and also state that they were unable to find a relationship
between organizational commitment and OCB. This is quite striking, because one would believe that if someone is committed to a company on a high level, the individual is also willing to exceed their contractual obligations and do something extra for a company (what can be considered to be organizational citizenship behavior). Schnappe (1998) and Meyer et al (2002), on the other hand, did find a relation between organizational commitment and OCB, as one would expect. Organ and Ryan (1995) found that organizational commitment was able to both predict ‘altruism’ (AOCB) and ‘general compliance’ (COCB). Organ and Ryan (1995) do note that organizational commitment is not a ‘superior’ predictor of OCB, but that it can predict OCB to some height. As organizational commitment is mostly concerned with commitment to the organization, it is expected that it will have a stronger relation to COCB than it will have with AOCB, this in spite of the findings of Organ and Ryan (1995). Yet, a relation between organizational commitment and AOCB is still expected, because employees can also feel they are committed to the colleagues and persons within an organization, under normative commitment. It is expected that the findings of Moorman, Niehoff and Organ (1993) and Williams and Anderson (1991) will not be replicated. Based on the literature available it is expected that organizational commitment does related to both forms of OCB.
H0b31: There is a significant relationship between the organizational commitment of an employee and COCB.
H0b32: There is a significant relationship between the organizational commitment of an employee and AOCB.
According to studies done by Liden and Maslyn (1998) and Genstner and Day (1997) the LMX is correlated to commitment. This might imply that the LMX is also related with AOCB and COCB, as is proposed with organizational commitment above. Looking at the
LMX without the correlation to organizational commitment, Liden and Maslyn (1998) state that members who have a ‘high quality LMX’, in other words a high level of LMX, were more likely to engage in ‘tasks and duties that extend beyond what is required from the formal employment contract’ (p.46). This implies that employees with a high level of LMX engage more actively in organizational citizenship behaviors. The study of Liden and Maslyn (1998) does not imply either COCB or AOCB specifically, but is aimed at OCB in general. Wang et al (2005) study transformational leadership behaviors and try to relate them to OCB. They, like this study, also recognize LMX as a mediator. Wang et al (2005) also study OCB in general, with no apparent preference for affiliative or challenging OCB. They state that it is expected that the LMX will correlate with OCB, because ‘an individual being a good citizen promotes the welfare of the larger collective’ (p. 442). Eventually they also find that their assumption was correct and that a higher level of LMX indeed led to a higher level of OCB. One should note, that the LMX is focused on the relationship with the supervisor,
embodiment of the organization, and therefore it is expected that the relation will be stronger with COCB than the relation with AOCB. Continuing, based on the fact that LMX is
correlated to commitment, which is expected to relate to OCB, and the fact that previous studies have already shown that LMX is related to OCB, the hypotheses are as follows; H0b41: There is a significant relationship between the relationship with the supervisor and COCB.
H0b42: There is a significant relationship between the relationship with the supervisor and AOCB.
Lastly there is the mediator designed solely for this study, the CMX. As this mediator is not recognized anywhere else, no previous studies toward a relation between the
have already been described to some sort. If one has a good relationship with his or her colleagues, it can be expected that a relation with affiliative OCB will be found. It is
interesting to see this relation in combination with narcissism. As described it can be expected that narcissists are not likely to have a good relationship with colleagues, because of the fact that they lack empathy (Raskin and Hall, 1979). In case a narcissist does have good
relationship with colleagues, it is expected to contribute to AOCB. On the other hand, if one has a good relationship with their colleagues, it is also likely that such an individual is willing to behave ‘right and proper’ within the organization. It is also probable that if one has a good relationship with their colleagues, they will engage in behaviors that go beyond the
contractual responsibilities (COCB). This leads to the hypotheses;
H0b51: There is a significant relationship between the relationship an employee has with their colleagues and COCB.
H0b52: There is a significant relationship between the relationship an employee has with their colleagues and AOCB.
Hypotheses from narcissism to affiliative and challenging OCB:
As already explained in the introduction, no previous studies have been done toward a narcissism-OCB relationship (Judge, LePine and Rich, 2006). However, Machiavellianism has been studied in relation to OCB, and narcissism has been studied in order to try to relate it to counter-productive work behavior. Therefore, in order to create well-studied hypotheses, the studies toward the Machiavellianism-OCB relation and Narcissism-CWB relation are used to create an understanding. Machiavellianism is a trait that tends to move together with
narcissism. Next to that, narcissism tends to be a present trait when Machiavellianism is found, or the other way around (McHoskey, 1995, Paulus and Williams, 2002, and O’Boyle et al, 2012).
Up to this point, one has an understanding of the three dark personality traits, and what sorts of behavior are considered negative within organizations, CWB, as it was described in the introduction. Because of the fact that the three dark personality traits are considered negative, researchers have been trying to relate the negative traits to CWB. Goh (2006) and O’Boyle et al (2012) study the link between Machiavellianism and CWB. Both of those studies find that Machiavellianism can be connected with negative workplace behaviors (CWB). O’Boyle et al (2012) state that: ‘increases in Machiavellianism were associated with declines in performance and increases in CWB’ (p. 564). However, O’Boyle et al (2012) did not only study Machiavellianism, but also studied the other dark traits. They found that for subclinical psychopathy no relation can be found with CWB. They provide the reason that people who are likely to engage in subclinical psychopathic behavior; will probably not show it when tested for CWB. They express their behavior in such a way that it does not influence the CWB scale (O’Boyle et al, 2012). Lastly there is the narcissism trait. One however should recall that narcissism and Machiavellianism are related to each other (McHoskey, 1995, Paulus and Williams, 2002, and O’Boyle et al, 2012). According to McHoskey (1995) this is because of the fact that narcissists and Machiavelli’s share the characteristic that they tend to manipulate others (p. 755). If one is to look at the results of O’Boyle et al (2012) and relating their findings to those of McHoskey (1995), one would expect that narcissism also should be related to CWB. This was indeed the case, and an ‘association between narcissism and CWB’ (O’Boyle et al, 2012, p. 564) was found.
What is interesting to see is that organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior both have two distinct and proven forms, one focusing colleagues or persons, and the other focusing an organization or system. This could also be expected however, as CWB and OCB are theoretical counter-parts. As already explained, O’Boyle et al (2012) were able to relate Machiavellianism and Narcissism with
counterproductive work-behavior. This, could be expected, since Machiavellianism and narcissism are considered ‘negative’ or ‘dark’ traits (Paulhus and Williams, 2002) and are more likely to relate to work behavior that also is considered negative (CWB). Despite these expectations, Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) found some ‘positive’ sides to a
Machiavellianism trait in leaders. They found that ‘Machiavellian leaders are able to stimulate similar motivational processes in their followers as Non-Machiavellian leaders’ (Den Hartog and Belschak, 2012, p. 44). The impact the research of Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) have on this study is that it proves that people with ‘negative’ traits, are able to function in the same way as individuals not showing negative traits. They are able to show good behavior. In the study of Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) Machiavelli’s are able to show ethical behavior, despite the fact that Machiavellianism is considered a negative trait. In a study done by Zettler and Solga (2013) it was found that Machiavellian employees were able to display
organizational citizenship behavior to a certain level. According to Zettler and Solga (2013) this was due to the fact that these Machiavelli’s recognize that they might need the help of others in order for themselves to be more successful. This is in line with the study of Den Hartog and Belschak (2012), as it is recognized that persons with Machiavellian traits are able to show ‘good’ or ‘ethical’ behavior, if it influences them positively (Zettler and Solga, 2013).
Bolino, Turnley and Niehoff (2004) also look very critically to OCB. Looking at the study of Organ (1988), Bolino, Turnley and Niehoff (2004) describe that they find it strange that scholars have automatically assumed that OCB has to come from ‘positive’ traits, instead of ‘self-serving motives’ (p.233) and that OCB might also be found in the ‘darker’ traits. Zettler and Solga (2013) already found that Machiavelli’s were able to show organizational citizenship behavior, as this might benefit them in the future. Becker and O’Hair (2007) on the other hand found a negative relationship between Machiavellianism and AOCB/COCB. Dahling et al (2009), in contrast of Becker and O’Hair (2007) and Zettler and Solga (2013)
did not find any relation between Machiavellianism and AOCB. Belschak et al (2014) found that the level of OCB for Machiavelli’s depended on the behavior of the leader, and that Machiavelli’s were able to show COCB. Despite a low number of studies toward
Machiavellianism and OCB, a few have been done, although the results differ. However, as already explained, Machiavellianism hangs together with Narcissism, and these two dark personality traits tend to move together (McHoskey, 1995). Dahling et al (2009), in line with McHoskey (1995) also found that narcissism was positively related to Machiavellianism.
Based on the studies toward the Machiavellianism-CWB, Machiavellianism-OCB and narcissism-CWB expectations and hypotheses can be formulated for a narcissism-OCB relationship. One should note that the antecedents of CWB are stronger related than the antecedents of OCB (Dalal, 2005). Machiavellianism and Narcissism are both related to CWB (O’Boyle et al, 2012). This could imply that, as CWB is the counterpart of OCB, that
narcissism is not related to OCB. However, other studies found, like Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) found that Machiavelli’s were able to express ‘good’ behavior. Zettler and Solga (2013) found that Machiavelli’s were able to show OCB. This implies that individuals with negative traits are able to show CWB as well as OCB. Considering the research question the following hypotheses can be formulated;
H0c1: There is a significant relationship between narcissism and COCB. H0c2: There is a significant relationship between narcissism and AOCB.
In this study it is expected that narcissism can lead to COCB and AOCB. The argumentation behind this is that individuals with the narcissism trait like the praise they receive from their peers and supervisor if they indulge in organizational citizenship behaviors. This relation is mediated by pride, hubris, organizational commitment, LMX and CMX. The
argumentation why this mediation is expected can be found in the explanations of the mediators and respective hypotheses.
Method and Data:
The data used in this study was found by sending and handing out a questionnaire amongst a large array of organizations. Around 300 companies were approached via mail and another 200 were approached in person. No distinction was made between companies or industries the organizations had to engage in. The 300 companies that were e-mailed came from the network of the writer, and the 200 organizations were also approached by the writer himself. The study is a cross-sectional study, as time-constrains are in place. The
questionnaire consisted of two surveys, which needed to be filled in by two direct colleagues. At first sight, it was estimated that around 120-150 questionnaires would be completed by the participating organizations and sent back. Sadly enough only 57 surveys were eventually filled in and returned. Companies complained that they had a very busy period and were unable to find employees who could complete in the questionnaires. The organizations that did return the questionnaires returned one or two sets of surveys whilst others returned up to five complete questionnaires. The companies that filled in the surveys will remain
anonymous, as was promised. However, it can be stated that the companies that did fill in the surveys were very diverse. They were all engaged in different industries and differed in size. Some were companies where only five people worked, a small organization, whilst others were multinationals. The surveys that have been returned are not tipped in the favor of one industry or company size. One should note that the questionnaire was mostly filled in by office-personnel. This has to do with the fact that it was felt, that people in office locations know each other better, and can easier ‘show’ organizational citizenship behavior.
Method:
One questionnaire consisted of two surveys, as was already explained. The reason why this has been done has to do with the study of Organ and Ryan (1995). Organ and Ryan (1995) found that the self-ratings of OCB of an individual were on average higher than what colleagues would rate that individual. This is in accordance with the study of Smith, Organ and Near (1983) as they already conclude that OCB is hard to measure. Since we are dealing with a study towards narcissism and narcissists (people who find themselves grandiose), it can be expected that they will even rate their own level of OCB even higher. This would
jeopardize the validity of our study, as this might result in the conclusion that narcissism is positively related to AOCB and COCB and that narcissism leads to organizational citizenship behaviors, while this might not actually be the case. Therefore, in order to measure the level of OCB that an individual engages in and overcome how hard it is to actually measure OCB (Smith, Organ and Near, 1983), it was chosen to have a colleague rate the level of OCB. In survey 1, see appendix 1 (written in Dutch), the level of narcissism, pride, hubristic pride, organizational commitment, leader-member exchange and colleague-exchange were measured. Survey 1 also consisted of other variables, why this was done will be explained below. Survey 2, see appendix 2 (also written in Dutch), was given to a colleague by the person who filled in survey 1. Survey 2 consisted of a couple of variables, but the most important for this study were the questions intended for the measurement of COCB and AOCB. The other variables will be discussed below.
The individual filling in survey 1 could select the colleague that had to fill in survey 2 on their own. One could argue that by having people selecting the colleague that had to fill in survey 2, could result in having be-friended colleagues filling in the second survey. This might lead to a higher level of OCB because the people filling in survey 1 and 2 are friends, and they might look more positive to each other. On the other hand, if the researchers were to
select all people who had to fill in survey 2, it might result in people who hardly know each other, or work with one another, to rate one another’s OCB. This could also result in elevated levels of OCB if people give each other the benefit of the doubt, by thinking that someone strikes them as the person that engages in OCB. Or on the other hand, lower levels of OCB than what they actually are because people do not know each other that well. Hence, it was chosen to have people self-select the corresponding person to fill in survey 2. Despite the risk of having slightly higher levels of OCB, this is better than completely unreliable results because OCB was rated by a colleague who did not know ‘employee 1’.
Data measurement:
Now that one knows where the questionnaire was distributed and who were needed to fill in the survey, the survey and measures itself will be discussed. Where each variable, narcissism, mediators and OCB, was measured has already been discussed, but not how it was measured. However, not only these variables made up the surveys. More variables were recognized for a couple of reasons. First, by doing so these other variables, unrelated to this study, could be used to calculate missing values. Secondly, these variables were added to make sure that people could not guess what the study and survey was specifically about, and were unable to answer ‘correctly’ instead of honestly. What is meant with ‘correctly’ is that if one tells someone this study is about narcissism, people will rethink their answers and fill in what they think is the correct answer, instead of the answer that is actually applicable to them. One should note that the extra variables that were used in the surveys are not central to this study and will not be discussed in depth. It is important to know that all questions were scaled from 1 to 7, except the questions about narcissism, which were A/B questions. In order to process this data A was recognized as a 1 and B as a 2 in the data-sheet. Continuing, survey 1 started by measuring the level of pride and hubris. The pride and hubris questions were mixed
and placed in a section of 16 questions, of which 7 were measuring pride and 9 measured hubris. The questions were based on the study done by Tracy and Robins (2007) who
recognize the different ‘key-words’ that can indicate pride or hubris. Successful for example is a word indicating pride, whereas egotist indicates hubris. Secondly, pride in one’s
organization was tested. This was based on a study done by Tyler and Blyder (2002).
Organizational commitment followed pride in one’s organization and was based on the study done by Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) and Meyer et al (2002). Organizational commitment was measured using different theorems, for example if one feels a ‘part of the family’ within the organization. Job autonomy is the fourth variable in the survey. The questions measuring job autonomy are based on the study of Hackman and Oldham (1980). OCB was measured after job autonomy. OCB was included in survey 1 to make sure that it would not stand out in survey 2. The questions that were used to asses COCB were based on the study done by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). AOCB was assessed using the study of MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter (1991). For example, one of the questions that helped measure AOCB was if someone tried ‘to avoid creating problems for others’. Counterproductive work behavior was measured after OCB as a control-variable. Fox and Spector (1999) created the basis for the theorems used to assess CWB. Self-Efficacy (Chen, Gully and Eden, 2001) and Core Self-Evaluation (Judge et al, 2003) followed CWB. The questions to measure the level of narcissism followed after self-efficacy and core self-evaluation. Raskin and Hall (1979) did not only identify the characteristics of narcissism, but also created a way to test for them. It was called the narcissistic personality inventory, or NPI. The test was 223 questions long. Therefore it was shortened a few times throughout the years, as studies such as Raskin and Terry’s (1988) showed which questions could be left out, whilst keeping the results unchanged. Ames, Rose and Anderson (2006) eventually were able to create the NPI-16, a short question list to measure for narcissism. Ames, Rose and Anderson (2006) based their NPI-16 for a large part
on that of Raskin and Terry (1988) and Raskin and Hall (1979). In the NPI-16 narcissism is mostly tested based on seven components, that being Authority, Exhibitionism, Superiority, Entitlement, Exploitativeness, Self-Sufficiency, and Vanity (Ames, Rose and Anderson, 2006; Raskin and Terry, 1988). LMX and CMX came after narcissism. The LMX questions were based on the study done by Liden, Wayne and Stilwell (1992). The CMX questions were the same as the LMX questions, but all references to the supervisor/leader were changed to colleagues, co-worker or other synonyms to aim at colleagues instead of the supervisor. It was chosen to test CMX in the same way as LMX because the LMX has already been
scientifically proven and has been shown to capture the relation between a supervisor and employee. Therefore it seems logical that if one changes the supervisor/leader part to colleagues in the LMX questions, one will measure the relationship between colleagues and individual in a good way. Survey 1 ended with questions about the variables; perceived victimization (Acquino and Byron, 2002) and impression management (Bolino and Turnley, 1999). Lastly some demographics were asked.
Survey number 2 was largely the same as survey 1. Survey 2 started with the same questions about pride and hubris, followed by pride in one’s organization. Again, these variables were not actually used in this study, but were asked as ‘control’ variables and making sure that the subjects did not know what the survey was about. Machiavellianism followed the variables described above. These questions were created using the studies done by Christie and Geis (1970) and Dahling, Whitaker and Levy (2009). Narcissism followed Machiavellianism. One could use the answers given on Machiavellianism and narcissism to replicate the findings of McHoskey (1995), Paulus and Williams (2002), and O’Boyle et al (2012) that Machiavellianism and narcissism are correlated and tend to move together. It was chosen not to do that though. After narcissism, the somewhat interesting part of survey 2 started, as the questions started to go about the individual who had filled in survey 1. In this
part the first questions were about CMX, and, for example, if someone was inclined to actually help the individual who filled in survey 1. After the question about CMX the OCB questions were presented. The first five questions assessed the COCB of the individual, and the then seven remaining questions were about AOCB. Again, these questions were based on the studies done by Dyne and LePine (1998) and MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter (1991). Survey number 2 ended with questions about impression management of the individual and how the colleague perceived the power of the individual. This last variable was based on the study of Anderson and Galinsky (2006). Survey 2 also ended with some questions about the demographics of the colleague. “
Data processing:
In order to make sure that survey 1 and survey 2 would stay coupled, since the OCB measure of the individual was placed in survey 2, all the answers were placed in one row of the data-processing program SPSS. The answers of the colleague were prefaced with a capital C, to show that those were the answers given by the colleague. Whilst processing the data and putting it in the computer it was decided that the missing values would not be accounted for, and that they were to leave blank. This had to do with how the data was to be processed later on. It was chosen that the means of the different variables would be calculated. As explained, there were multiple questions that had to do with certain variables. The mean scores of the questions about one variable were calculated. In order to make sure that these variables were reliable, it was decided that the Cronbach’s alpha was to be used to calculate the reliability of the different questions. The results and the questions that were left out in order to increase reliability will be discussed in the next paragraph.
To recap, the questionnaires, consisting of two surveys, were distributed at a large array of organizations. The personnel filling in the surveys were mostly based in offices, as it
is expected that people in such departments get to know each other better, and it is easier to identify OCB in such departments. Narcissism and the mediators were measured in survey 1, filled in by an individual. A colleague of this individual had to fill in survey 2, consisting of different variables, but most important the COCB and AOCB measure. Organ and Ryan (1995) show that people rate themselves higher when they assess their own OCB. Therefore a colleague was asked to fill in survey 2 and rate the OCB of the individual filling survey 1. The mediators and OCB were measured using a 7-point scale, and Narcissism was measured using the NPI-16 (A-B) questions as proposed by Ames, Rose and Anderson (2006). In order to use the data gathered in these questions, the mean scores per variable were calculated, and in order to make sure that the variables are reliable the Cronbach’s alpha will be used.
Results:
The questionnaires were filled in by 57 individuals and 57 colleagues. Of this sample, 49.1% of respondents were males and 50.9% were females. The largest part of this sample, 52.6% has attended college. 73.7% of the respondents in the sample works fulltime. The group of colleagues that rated the individuals above consisted for 50.9% of males and 49.1% of this group were females. 93% of this group stated that they have contact on a daily basis with the individual they are rating on OCB. Only 7% state that they have contact on a weekly basis.
Reliability:
Before the mean values of the variables can be calculated, the reliability of the variables needs to be checked. It was found that one of the questions that was used to assess pride, did not contribute to the reliability. This was a question (13) if one felt productive or not. The Cronbach’s alpha if included is 0.267, but if deleted the reliability would rise to
