Leading the Machiavellian man : The effects of Transformational Leadership in inducing Organizational Citizenship Behavior and limiting Machiavellian tactics and behavior.

(1)

Transformational Leadership in inducing OCB among Machiavellian employees in the organization. Current theory on the topic of leadership style, OCB, ingratiation

and Machiavellian tactics are presented and discussed. Research question is further tested through a quantitative

study done in The Netherlands.

Leading the

Machiavellian

Man

The effects of Transformational

Leadership in inducing Organizational Citizenship Behavior and limiting Machiavellian tactics and behavior Per Ivar G. Roseth

Master Dissertation, July 2013

Written under the supervision and guidance of Dr. Frank Belschak

(2)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

his thesis was not only an exploration on leadership style, self-fulfilment needs and the needs of the organization, but an attempt to serve to high-light an issue that has received very limited attention so far in the academia. This topic is one that might in the future help shape Leadership and Human Resource practices, and it is the hope that this work will perhaps help illustrate the need for further research.

Given this, credit needs to be given to Dr. Frank Belschak for his continued patience, providing extensive assistance and guidance on the topic of Leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Machiavellian tactics, Quantitative research, research methodology and a number of other issues that arose during the time this paper was written. Dr. Frank Belschak additionally provided much-needed feedback and input during my efforts to formulate a research question and writing of this paper. He additionally was kind enough to provide the time to complete an internship before handing in the thesis.

The questionnaire used for the quantitative part of this paper was created and provided by Dr.

Frank Belschak, and Prof. Deanne Den Hartog, both of the University of Amsterdam.

T

(4)

INTRODUCTION

anagement practitioners and academia alike have sought to identify and realize the challenges that are part of the continually changing, and increasingly complex present business organizations. These organizations are now functioning within an ever

increasingly changing business environment as the world is becoming smaller and more competitive, demanding new fresh outlooks on how to operate ones business, be they SMEs(Small to medium sized enterprises) or larger corporate enterprises. Numerous business models have shown up over the decades, and current business leaders have sought inspiration from both contemporary and older sources, seeking stimulus and ideas from the business world as well as the political one. Papers on the pursuit of political power, such as ones drafted by Niccolo Machiavelli, disputably the father of modern political science, have inspired political leaders, but also business leaders, as the tactics enumerated in his work can be applied to a number of situations where human interaction takes place.

Work like “The Prince” have inspired and been utilized as a handbook for business and political leaders alike, as his work, although written half a millennia ago, still rings true when it comes to strategic action and power-play. Parel (1972) described Machiavelli’s teachings as a fundamental proverb or axiom, namely that human behaviour is universally similar, no matter the culture, region the people reside within or even if it’s the 16th or the 21st century. These teachings hold true if applied on a global scale, or even on a smaller scale, as in an organization.

Being an astute watcher of men, Machiavelli observed that people in a group setting will

predominately behave differently from one another. They will all have similar, but yet significantly different approaches to how to assert themselves in a group. While some take a more relaxed approach, changing their actions and attitudes based on the opinions and actions of the group, some stand out as uninfluenced by the powerful human desire to be accepted by and included in the society. As these behaviours are not context bound, the type of thinking one has is exercised also in an organizational setting. These everyday behaviours of organizational players, be they business leaders or mere employees, can have a positive or negative impact on the overall effectiveness on both the society and the organization. How said management handles their own employees can possibly have a strong impact on the work effort put in by their staff, as employees will be less so or more strongly able to derive satisfaction from their work. If therefore

management and HR have a greater understanding of employee incentives, behaviours and behavioural differences, they will be more able to tailor the work and incentive schemes to the needs of the employee.

To this date however there has been only some degree of study done on the role of the

transformational leadership in instilling organizational citizenship behaviour on employees in an

M

(5)

organization, and even less so on its effect on Machiavellian type employees. The focus has primarily been on the Machiavellian management, but what seems as possibly equally detrimental on job efficiency is workers with such traits. Given this theoretical gap in the existing literature, we hope to shed more light on this topic by posing and attempting to answer the following question: “Will the application of Transformational Leadership lead to Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

in Machiavellian employees?”

Literature has so far shown that if motivated to do so and feel trust and respect for the manager, employees can perform well beyond the tasks that they are contractually bound to do (Yukl, 1989) The correct application of leadership therefore can have strong implications for the overall

efficiency of an organization; this is supported by Bass (1985) whom outlined the transformational leadership style, a leader who could instil in his followers feelings of trust, loyalty, respect, and a desire for extra effort.

Dahling, Whitaker and Levy (2009) summed up Machiavellianism largely along four dimensions. These were Distrust for others, Desire for status, Desire for control, and amoral manipulation. Machiavellian tactics have been shown to have detrimental effects in an organization, as they are more likely to engage in theft, economic opportunism, narcissism etc. (Fehr, Samson, Paulhus, 1992). Furthermore, as noted by Dahling et al. (2009), Machiavellians (Mach’s) often have lower level of commitment, and thus can more easily show counterproductive behaviour, or even leave the organization as soon as a better opportunity arises. Mach’s are also strongly perceived as individuals whom readily engage in manipulative and otherwise unfair behaviour that result in an overall weaker group cohesion and overall employee quality (e.g., Christie & Geis, 1970; Geis & Moon, 1981; Gunnthorsdottir, McCabe, & Smith, 2002). As scholars have maintained, Mach’s are strongly premeditated in their approach and responses, and will by this logic follow any behaviour that will benefit them the most easily. This includes being cooperative, dependable etc. when this is presented as being beneficial for them (Wilson et al., 1996)

The real questions therefore would then be if transformational leadership has a positive effect on any employee, or are there perhaps variations in the response of employees to the application of transformational leadership. As current research has shown there are significant differences in how people behave, and how people respond to external stimuli it would be interesting to investigate how this leadership style would affect behavioural traits usually associated with Machiavellian behaviour. Dahling et al. (2009) explored this and found no noteworthy relation between Mach and extra-role behaviour that is not recognize by any formal reward system

(Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)), but would this still hold true under a transformational leader?

(6)

This has been explored by author’s such as Hawley (2003), whom argued that since mach’s so easily change their approach towards improving their own standing, they can sincerely cooperate and work effectively with co-workers when it suits them, so again would this then depend on how the leader beneficial behaviour for employees?

Investigating the extent to which Machiavellian employees will engage in additional activities that are beneficial for the organization if under the influence of Transformational Leadership therefore merits further focus. To our knowledge, the effect of transformational leadership on a

Machiavellian personality and his or her propensity to engage in behaviour positive for the

organization (Organizational Citizenship Behaviour), has not received a great degree of research so far, so we hope that with this study we can stimulate more academic interest for a field that we see as highly valid and beneficial for Human resource management. We will argue that whether or not an individual that displays Mach behaviour and that is engaging in Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) is strongly related to the correct application of Transformational Leadership, by being stimulated to derive work-related satisfaction from factors other than the purely monetary. While there is some backing for the proposition that high-Mach type employees would more likely prefer transactional leadership styles (Zagenczyk et al.,2011), we stipulate that such

transformational leadership would also apply for both low-Mach and high-Mach type employees The purpose of this paper is therefore to present a theory-based discussion of the everyday presence of employee Machiavellian behaviour, the Transformational Leader, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and how to instil it in employees. This theoretical approach is further supported by employee questionnaire responses, as well as personal observation to ensure a proper "triangulation of the results" (Eskola & Suoranta, 2008) as we are combining out study, with our own perceptions from work, and what research has already been done on the topic.

Learning more about the intricacies of human behavioural differences, and how to mediate any negative behaviour for the organization, can hopefully give management and HR in general better tools at managing any and all employees.

Theory & hypotheses

(7)

Transformational leadership, Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour & Machiavellianism

rganizational Leadership has been discussed in gruelling detail, covering most leadership styles, be they transformational, transactional etc. The purpose of this paper however will be more focused on the effects of transformational leadership on strong Mach type personalities, as well as on the other employees.

“The Prince” specifies specific strategies and end goals one needs to pursue to be successful as a leader and as that corporations and states can be argued to be fundamentally the same,

Machiavellian teachings can apply to both the political and business world and human interaction (John W. Swain, 2002).

In the “Prince” Niccolo Machiavelli suggests that in order to become a successful leader any person will at times have to disregard any principles he or she might have in order to properly deal with the issues that arise. Any person he argues, that is able to do so, will be more successful than those whom always act honestly, justly and truthfully. Comparing this to present day individuals, one can say that any person whom tends to engage in manipulative behaviours and or shows little or no moral restraint show behavioural traits alongside those described by Machiavelli, therefore

showing Machiavellian personality traits ( Christine & Geis, 1970). From their studies they made an important distinction between people whom show strong Machiavellian behaviour (High Mach) as opposed to weak Machiavellian behaviour (Low Mach). People whom have Machiavellian

personality traits often show higher degrees of distrust, egocentricity, willingness to engage in manipulative and opportunistic behaviour (McHoskey, 1999), stronger degrees of narcissistic behaviour (McHoskey, 1995) and anxiety (Fehr, Samsom, & Paulhus, 1992), Additionally, Wiggins & Broughton (1985) asserted that high-Mach would be interpersonally distant and emotionally cold, while as Paal & Bereczkeu (2007) saw, such people lacked the necessary empathy to relate to others.

“…a ruler must have the cunning of a fox in order to avoid the snares laid for him. Then, after saying that a ruler should not keep faith when the reasons which made him promise have ceased to exist, he adds that this precept would not hold if men were good; but since they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, it is not necessary for you to keep it with them. His precept is, therefore, defensive in intention; it simply states that it may be foolish to keep faith with those who are not prepared to do the same” (G. H. R. Parkinson, 1955).

Any high-Mach person would therefore be less likely, if at all willing to, trust and or return favours (Meyer, 1992), and more likely to prefer opportunistic and manipulative behaviour (Christie & Geis, 1970, Sakalaki, Richardson, & Thepaut, 2007), but if this is merely due to their lack of empathy or perhaps due to High-Mach’s having higher locus of control (Mudrack, 1990) is debatable, and while

O

(8)

interesting in itself is not discussed in this work.

Focus in this study will remain solely on the “infamous” Machiavellian type behaviour, its

consequences on an organization and how the effects of transformational leadership can have an influence upon the before mentioned behaviour. In short, while it is true that transactional leadership is both efficient and able to improve an employee’s performance, this research will be focusing on is the possibility to positively influence and motivate Machiavellian employees through transformational leadership. This will hopefully help shed more light on a topic that has seen conflicting results regarding if High Mach employees would tend to have higher levels of job performance, as we will approach this issue with determining if we can increase their job performance in regards to OCB.

The transformational leader

In the traditional organization – the organization of the last one hundred years – the skeleton or internal structure was a combination of rank and power. In the emerging organization, it has to be a mutual understanding and responsibility” ( Peter F. Drucker, Managing in Times of Great Change)

n 1978 Burns published his work that introduced models surrounding leadership; these included two separate forms of leadership which he termed the transactional and transformational leadership.

Burns (1978) saw the transactional leader as being given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team's performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is granted to the leader to evaluate, correct, and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached. While it is true that transactional leadership is both efficient and able to improve an employee’s performance, it is the goal of this study to instead focus on other leadership styles that have proven to be effective in motivating the workforce (Bass, 1985, Bass & Avolio, 1990, Bycio, Hackett and Allen, 1995). This type of leadership, the transformational leader, articulates an

attractive future vision, infusing work with meaning, and inspires followers (e.g., Bass, 1985).

I

(9)

Definitions of Leadership have been identified and defined through various forms of approaches covering those focusing on Traits, Behaviour, Situational, Relational, The New Leadership and most recent, Emerging Leadership (Northouse, 2012). As this type of leadership has as a direct effect on organizational job performance, its definition has to be formulated within this parameter. Job performance in this context is basically the extent to which one supports the organization achieve its set targets and goals (Campbell, 1983). As Motowidlo et al. (1997) states on the assumptions of job performance we assume that job performance is behavioural, episodic,

evaluative and multi-dimensional. This is as described in the newer emerging leadership, and takes

into account that the variations in personality, situations and the mix of the two.

Given the multitude of studies that in fact have previously explored these links and definitions, this research takes one step forward and analyses The New Leadership Approach on employees

showing Machiavellian traits and their productivity. Exploring the Transformational leader in relation to Mach behaviour and in the context of performance seems not just appropriate, but of interest.

And as stated by Burns in his work “Leadership”(1978) “Leadership over human beings is exercised

when persons with certain motives and purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of followers... in order to realize goals mutually held by both leaders and followers...”

It has been argued that the actual influence of leaders in shaping and directly influencing the growth and general outcome of an organization is limited at best (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987) yet as will be argued here, and as most research seems to suggest, leadership is a contributing factor in

the success or failure of an organization (Hogan & Craig, 2008, Bass, 1990, Day, 2001)

One disputed, yet relatively easy way to monitor and rate leaders' effectiveness, is the job performance of his or her subordinates. Job performance most commonly refers to how well an individual executes his job, but the exact definition is as of this date still relatively poorly defined within the Human Resource Management or psychology context. John P. Campbell (1990) chose to define job performance simply as an “individual’s level variable” this to distinguish it from the overall organizational performance. It was further stipulated by him that job performance was and is a multidimensional concept that consists of several variations of behaviour. He suggested an 8 factor model of performance, which would largely be applicable to most types of jobs. One of these factors of performance, as Campbell suggested it, was the element of Leadership.

As stated, it is the element of leadership that is the focus of this paper and its positive effects on the job effectiveness of followers in an organization.

(10)

Power is, as one might assume, an important variable in the establishment and application of

leadership (Rost, 1991). We all assert some manner of influence on others in our day-to-day lives,

and also are influenced by others, and as such power is used and exchanged between people. Leadership therefore can be seen as independent of ones rank in society and is a mix of personal behaviour and power ( Fairholm, 2009). In an organization however, power tends to be more formalized, there are different layers of workers and different layers of managers which all assert influence over each other. The application of power can also be seen as both a positive and negative force within an organization. It can be used as a tool in Machiavellian tactics by a person for his or her own aggrandizement, with scheming, plotting, lying and manipulation being seen as some negative aspects of power use, or it can be used to develop and improve the situation of the employees and the organization. Leadership therefore is determined strongly by the intentions of the influencer, and power being used as a tool to pursue the goals of the leader figure. It is also how leadership is applied that determines its success in engaging employees and instilling in them the vision of the organization in the future. Additionally we would argue that if an employee is to derive satisfaction, purpose and motivation from his work, he or she will ultimately have to gain some level of independence and responsibility over his work environment, lest otherwise ultimately grow dissatisfied, unmotivated and without any desire to pursue the goals of the organization he or she is a part of. If the leader figure is unable to instil in his or her followers the motivation to perform through infusing their work with meaning, and inspire them through presenting an

attractive future, he or she will ultimately not be recognisably successful as a business leader. From this there is a high possibility of a high turnover and or workplace deviance could ultimately develop.

Because of this and the ever changing nature of business, organizations are forced to change rapidly to stay competitive. This has brought about a number of shifts in the organizational structures of big businesses, including the move of responsibility from traditional manager roles towards the employees themselves. Proactive workers whom are willing to go further and beyond what is specified in their terms of employment through initiative and extra effort have as such become the currently needed labour force of the 21st century (Crant, J.M, 2000).

Beyond attracting employees whom already show these characteristics, the question arose as to how one would bring ones current workforce up to this level and organizational commitment. Research on the matter showed that there were a number of diverse variables of an individual and the nature of his work environment that would help bring about and enhance such types of

proactive work behaviour (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker & Collins, 2010, Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). As intrinsic individual motivations are not part of this research, the focus will be exclusively on external factors, mentioned above as the work environment. Within this aspect, it has been previously researched and concluded that one of the prerequisites for motivating employees beyond their job description was the existence of a motivating leader figure. But this figure in itself is not sufficient to instil a change in behaviour, and research has shown that what is needed is that what is called a Transformational Leader (This is covered by but not limited to the works of e.g. 9

(11)

House, 1977; Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1989; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1988; Yukl, 1989).

“Current research evidence seems to indicate that transformational leadership has a positive effect

on work behaviour and approach for the organization as a whole, but also on an individual level”.(Lowe, & Avolio,2002; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).

Given these positive effects, ranging from staying longer work hours without being compensated for, actively searching for opportunities and engaging in projects beyond what is within ones worksheet, and feeling as part of a family rather than disconnected from the organization;

identifying the behaviours that improve a leaders competence at stimulating a positive work type behaviour has been a major concern for businesses and academics alike. Researchers like Bass (1981) House and Baetz (1979), Yukl (1989) have tried to address this issue through identifying the factors that bring about positive change, increased job efficiency and productivity and in essence getting people to do more than what they are contractually obliged to do, or as Yukl puts it, “push

subordinates to do more than they are expected to do” (Yukl, 1989).

These leaders, through charm, charisma, focus and skill, alter the values and desires of the employees so that they are more in line with that of the organization and the leader figure. “Followers feel trust and respect toward the leader and they are motivated to do more than they

are expected to do” (Yukl, 1989).

Bass (1985) emphasized the effectiveness of transformational leadership in making the member, or follower if you will; execute his tasks at higher than normal levels of performance. The primary causal reason being that it emphasis and stimulates a feeling of collective awareness of short-term and long-term action, and stirs the follower to put the needs of the collective along-side or above his or her own needs in order to overcome the specific challenge or goal. Bass(1995) further defines transformational leadership through the application of multiple dimensions;

1. “Charisma. The leader provides vision and a sense of mission; instils pride, faith and respect; excite, arouse and inspire their subordinates.

2. Individual consideration. The leader provides coaching and teaching; delegates projects to simulate learning experiences; provides for continuous feedback; and treats follower as an individual.

3. Intellectual stimulation. The leader provides subordinates with a flow of challenging new ideas; motivates followers to think in new ways; emphasizes problem solving and the use of reasoning before taking action.

(12)

4. Inspiration. The leader acts as a model for subordinates; behaves in ways that motivate and inspire followers by providing meaning and challenge; communicates a vision.” (Özaralli,

2003)

As change oriented behaviour can only be brought about through role models, charisma seems to be indeed an integrated part of Transformational Leadership. Bass (1995) found that such

leadership would lead to higher performing work clusters, with higher effectiveness and overall job performance being higher as well. Moreover, as was suggested by Howell & Frost (1989) high charisma alone as a factor in a leaders, leads to increased job performance and satisfaction as compared to the instructional leader. Charisma is being considered by many an expression of transformational leadership, attracting management with proper people skills, compared to the purely technical, and this can have a tremendous impact on the overall organizational success.

What can be said is that with proper leadership, employees will go way above and beyond their job prescriptions if correctly motivated to do so. There are more rewards to be gained from ones work beyond mere monetary compensation, and if correctly applied, a leader can change the work culture to one where employees believe that hard work now will be duly rewarded with respect, appraisal, increased responsibility, increased autonomy, future career growth and derive

satisfaction from these factors.

As famously, and accurately put by Napoleon Bonaparte when asked of the motivations of man, he said that “a man does not have himself killed for a halfpence a day or for a petty distinction. You

must speak to the soul in order to electrify him”. In essence this captures what Boal & Bryson (1988)

saw as what the Transformational Leader could achieve, in that he or she could “lift ordinary people

to extraordinary heights” through the correct application of charisma and leadership knowledge.

Moreover, “Members of transformational teams care about each other, intellectually stimulate

each other, inspire each other, and identify with the teams goals. Transformational teams are high-performing.”(Bernard M. Bass, 1999).

This all relates to Bass thoughts on going beyond self-actualization, as described in Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs. See Model 3.

(13)

In his model, Maslow described the steps that a person would pursue in order to achieve satisfaction in life, as one step is satisfied, a person would move on to the next, ultimately culminating in the pursuit of “Self-actualisation”. Essentially one starts out with basic needs, like shelter, sustenance and sleep, and once those needs are satisfied other needs start becoming topics of increasing interest, with the highest need being self-actualization.

Bass (1999) stipulates that there might indeed be a step beyond this 5 step ladder, possibly including an element of Organizational or group citizenship behaviour. This claim he sees as supported by Williams (1994) in that Williams indicated that transformational leaders did indeed show elements of “altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue, as well as

imbue their subordinates with these same values” (Bass, 1999).

Group cohesion was defined by Festinger (1950) as “the resultant forces which are acting on the

members to stay in a group”.

It is precisely this force that transformational leaders help bring about. Transformational leaders

therefore have the capacity to encourage and build a committed and high performing work force by increasing the member effectiveness through motivation and cohesion through common goals and drive among the members. This is further conjectured by R. Pillai and E. A. Williams(2004).

The definitions provided by Bass state from his findings that Transformational Leadership helps create synergies and a positive group-think so that the organization moves more with one common goal and vision of the future, and where the participants actively help shape the culture towards 12

(14)

flexibility, hard work and innovativeness. This happens as participants see the transformational leader as a role-model for accepted behaviour that gives participants a clearer framework for how one does ones work rather than focusing on how well or efficiently he does it. This could instil a greater sense of satisfaction from the process as the entire organization takes the journey of change and performance with the transformational leader. This group-think, or group cohesion, as defined by Festinger (1950), is done e.g. through delegation of responsibility and empowering the members of the organization with a sense of responsibility, which helps to facilitate a productive and inspirational drive. In fact, “analysis of power and control within organizations (Kanter, 1979;

Tannenbaum, 1968) reveals that the total productive forms of organizational power and

effectiveness grow with superiors' sharing of power and control with subordinates” (Conger and

Kanungo, 1988).

This seems to hold true to the theory that Transformational Leadership leads to increased OCB, as increased group cohesiveness and increased personal input can possibly be translated into how all employees perceive their “group” performance and “commit” to improve and support.

In fact, empowering employees has been identified as a strategy to improve work culture, overall job performance in the organization, and employee satisfaction.

Several academics, e.g. Hirshorne and Gillmore (1992) theorize that in order for empowerment to be successful, there are a number of boundaries that need to be overcome. As organizations

increasingly need to change and adapt, a clear line of leadership needs to be established in order to avoid a lack of structure and framework and to create common a vision and goals for the future. Not having clearly established the motivational leadership figure, role model and central authority in the organization could lead to an even more fragmented organization. Consistent leadership therefore with a clear vision of the future that has been delivered and indoctrinated by the staff, will give employees the framework to deal with issues quickly and according with the needs of the organization.

As in the case study of SoftTek, as presented by Denise Cox and Myra Fernandes in the paper of the role of HR in “increasing empowerment and employee involvement with knowledge workers”

(2005), there were some issues with change management if the leadership had not been clear enough in their “Vision for the company” along with instilling in their employees the understanding and motivation to actively work through this organizational and business-wise change.

“…Many employees have articulated that the IT Leadership team was not providing enough

communication regarding the vision of the IT department and its future direction…” (Cox,

Fernandes, 2005)

Change management is undoubtedly a challenging process. As can be seen in the before-mentioned case, without proper transformational leadership that can “inspire, energize, and intellectually

stimulate their employees”, it can be frustrating and demotivating for employees to work in the

(15)

organization, and by extension, difficult to see any incentive to put in the effort needed to overcome the often challenging tasks at hand, which, could lead to higher turnover rates and workplace deviance (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007)

This possibility to empower and inspire employees beyond their duties is supported by Podsakoff (1990) who stated that such transformational leadership can achieve and has been linked to

increased “in-role” and “extra-role” job behaviour and performance stemming from an extension in behaviour among employees that is beneficial to the organization, namely Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour & Machiavellianism

"An organization which depends

solely upon Its blue-prints of prescribed behaviour is a very fragile social system" (Katz,

1964)”

rganizational Citizenship Behaviour (hereafter, OCB) has been a topic of interest for the last 40 years, and over the last few decades, interest in these behaviours has increased

substantially. Organizational citizenship behaviour has been linked to overall organizational effectiveness, thus these types of employee behaviours have important consequences in the workplace.

Many terms have been created to describe the same process: Organizational Citizenship behaviour (Graham, 1991; Schnake, 1991; Organ, 1988) Extra role behaviour (Van Dyne and Cummings, 1990) and prosocial organizational behaviour (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986). Regardless of the definition one uses, the meaning covers all positive organizationally pertinent behaviours, or put in other words, all additional efforts made above the stated requirements as described in the employment contract. Namely, it means any extra-role type behaviours.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour as opposed to “Counterproductive work behaviour” (Dalal, 2005) is defined as “individual behaviour 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). Put simply, this covers all forms of non-contractually required

responsibilities and activities that lead to beneficial effects for the organization as a whole. The proper application of leadership therefore could lead to such behaviour among subordinates that they would, as pointed out by House et al. (1989), “perform above and beyond the call of

duty”. This is further supported by Boal and Bryson (1988) as they argue it can lift ordinary people

to extraordinary heights. Both Bass (1985) and Yukl (1989) claimed that transformational leadership

O

(16)

could push people to perform better than what is to be expected from them. These conclusions all point to the fact that transformational leadership will have a number of positive effects on in-role and extra-role behaviour through influencing and altering the followers values so that the

“followers feel trust and respect toward the leader and they are motivated to do more that they are

expected to do” (Yukl, 1989). The influence of the transformational leader, as pointed out by

Graham (1988), is most significant on extra-role performance, as employees will go above and beyond their job requirements, without any direct cost for the organization.

Research to this date has shown that Transformational Leadership leads to an increased in propensity to engage in OCB (House et al., 1989, Boal and Bryson, 1988, Bass, 1985, Yukl, 1989). Furthermore, as has been argued by authors such as Den Hartog, De Hoogh, & Keegan (2007); Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996), such forms of leadership have a positive link with OCB. From this we can state what will be our 1st_{hypothesis and assumption for the development of the}

core research question.

- Hypothesis 1: Transformational Leadership leads to increased OCB

Restating that the organization can be viewed as a simplified mini society, some parallels can and have been drawn between the citizen role in society and the employee role in an organization. The “active citizenship syndrome” as Inkeles (1969) described it, illustrates several categories of civic behaviour, which have certain similarities to the organizational citizenship behaviour as described above.

“The first category, obedience, involves respect for orderly structures and processes. Responsible

citizens recognize rational-legal authority and obey the law. The second category, Loyalty, expands parochial welfare functions to include serving the interests of the community as a whole and the values it embodies. Loyal citizens promote and protect their communities and volunteer extra effort for the common good. The third category, participation, entails active and responsible involvement in community self-governance in whatever ways are possible under the law. Responsible citizens keep themselves well informed about issues affecting the community, exchange information and ideas with other citizens, contribute to the process of community self-governance, and encourage others to do likewise” (Van Dyne; Graham; Dienesch, 1994)

Loyalty to management and the group, extra-role behaviour and self-interests in line with those of the organization are all factors present under transformational leadership, and employees induce satisfaction from the above activity, thus showing that responsible individuals, if motivated to do

so, will show legitimate concern and input extra effort in what they see of importance. Some charting of OCB suggest that it could possibly have two primary dimensions: pro-social behaviour as directed towards other individuals inside the organization, or in other words “altruism” and pro-social behaviour as directed towards the organization and its needs, termed “general compliance” (C. Ann Smith, Dennis W. Organ, and Janet P. Near, 1983). In both cases, 15

(17)

Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer (1997) proposed that OCB could be a proactive behaviour, in as such that employees might mindfully choose to engage in OCB as it would benefit them in a particular way. This is supported by Bolino (1999), as he stipulated that if employees were lead to believe that their organization is important, and said organization would recognize their efforts as important and as a cause for reward, this would induce a work force with high degrees of loyalty, extra-role effort, and increased in-role productivity.

The need for self-fulfilment therefore could be satisfied through productive effort for the

organization, but if and only if, said employees were lead to derive satisfaction from said activity. This implies that much of, if not all, human behaviour be driven by a need for the individuals to pursue his or her agenda, self-fulfilment possibly being the strongest motivator of all. Yet, this might be an over-presumption. Who is to say if people do have the same end goals, pursue those actively, or even if they have the same goals, would pursue it with similar type of OCB or

Machiavellian type behaviour. Human behaviour seems to diverge enough for any such

conclusion to be an over-generalization. Strong Mach type personalities could see extra effort as a means to an end to gain further financial or positional gain, therefore engaging in positive behaviour for the organization, or they may not.

As argued by Motowidlo et, al. (1997); “Personality traits affect contextual performance through

their effects on contextual knowledge, skills and habits”….

…“Contextual work habits are patterns of responses that either facilitate or interfere with effective

performance in contextual work situations. These include characteristic tendencies to approach or avoid various types of interpersonal and group situations, preferred ways of handling conflict, interpersonal and political styles such as Machiavellianism”(Motowidlo, 1997)

Such pro-social behaviour would therefore only be interesting if the individual feels he or she has something to gain from it, effort without any form of reward, be it monetary, social approval etc., would reasonably so, not be the best manner to which one spends one's time and energy, and so best avoided. In fact, unless instilled and nurtured by management, there would be no natural motivation to support an organization, beyond the purely transactional, as opposed to personal

connections or personal goals, which would be perceived ends in themselves, with inherent value to the individual. The question then remains, would transformational leaders have an effect on the

overall job performance and Machiavellian tactics of employees that engage in ingratiation tactics and other possibly negative behaviour for the organization.

(18)

The method as to which an organization tries to stimulate its employees with the correct work morale and motivations, along with the personality of the individual, could very well determine how productive he or she could possibly be. Lewins (1938) equation which tries to connect the variables of behaviour, makes an attempt at showing how strongly personality could influence the organizational-individual relationship, and if nothing else, helps to illustrate the relationship between the individual and his interaction with others.

Lewin started with the formula B = f(P,E) where B is behaviour, P is a function of the individual characteristics, and E being environmental factors. Using this formula he illustrated how behaviour is a function of personal and environmental factors where the choices a person makes are

determined by the stimuli he or she receives from themselves and their surroundings. Because of this strong link between personality and organization-personal relationship, it becomes of an even greater importance the type of personality an employee has, and how this can be directed and influenced. Even more so, in the case of Mach personalities, as a manager ideally want to make the organization-personal relationship a positive and beneficial one.

hristie & Geis (1970) stated that Machiavellian people lack the predictable morality,

ideological motives, deep personal connection and restraint from engaging in manipulative scheming of other fellow people. As this type of personality was and still is fascinating to research, as far back as 1976 there had already been made multiple tests on the child

Tr

an

sf

orm

at

io

nal le

ad

er

sh

ip

On General

Employee Populace

Increased OCB

On Machiavellian

Employees

?

C

(19)

developmental stages and Machiavellian behaviour in children and adults (Kraut & Price, 1976).

“At least two studies have demonstrated that a Machiavellian orientation can be measured in children as young as 11 years old and that children with this orientation are more successful at manipulating other children” (Kraut & Price, 1976).

On-going research since then has however shed some additional light on the various differences between high-Mach and low-Mach. Given that Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, is associated with pro-social behaviour (Kamdar, McAllister, 2005) which is an act that encompasses helping other individuals, it might be reasonable to assume that high-Mach are not prone to altruism. Left to their own devices therefore one could make the supposition that Machiavellianism is negatively related OCB, but this may not always be correct under the correct guidance, as they are influenced by incentives just as much as any other individual. This being said, depending on the leadership style and incentive schemes, even people with Mach behaviour can display motivation towards OCB. This gives us grounds for our second hypothesis. From the mentioned theories we can say that on-going research has shown High Machs have a higher tendency to have stronger degrees of narcissism, mistrust and cynicism (McHoskey, 1995; 1999). This along with being emotionally cold, it is safe to assume that Machiavellian employees will not engage in acts of altruism or other forms of OCB that will not benefit them themselves without any form of reward system (Wiggins & Broughton, 1985, (Paal & Bereczkei, 2007). High-Machs also have shown to disregard any social norms related to altruism and positive reciprocity (Gunnthorsdottir, McCabe, & Smith, 2002), further supporting our 2nd_hypothesis.

- Hypothesis 2: Machiavellian employees do not engage in OCB

In regards to job performance, further research needs to be done, as there have been made studies with conflicting results on the matter, proving that either Machiavellian-type people display a higher job performance (e.g., Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009), or no noticeable performance (e.g., Hunt & Chonko, 1984 Gable & Topol, 1991) from the rest of the employees, or other studies

proving that there is in fact a reduced job performance (Gable & Topol, 1988).

Some other work has also touched upon this topic. Reimers and Barbuto (2002) reviewed the tempering effects on the Machiavellian behaviour, the sources of influence and its relationship in regards to motivation and influencing tactics. So what would then be the effects of a successful leadership style, most specifically the transformational leadership style, in inspiring and instilling organizational citizenship in Machiavellian type employees?

McClelland argued that based on the particular personality characteristics, people might have various motives or needs to pursue positions of authority in order to feel satisfied, and these urges one might only be partially aware of exist. This is further supported by research done by e.g. Burns (1978) whom did research on self-actualization, and its effect on individual’s ability to function effectively within the organization. People with strong self-realization needs are possibly therefore more suited for and successful in achieving positions of authority and control. (Bennis & Nanus, 18

(20)

1985)

Even though people with Machiavellian traits are more able to reach authority posts, as Bowles, Gintis & Osborne (2001) points out in their work on incentives and character differences,

stimulating the character traits that were able to reach a position of authority, might not always be the best plan of action; “…caution applies to fostering traits such as Aggression in high-status males

or the psychological dimension termed Machiavellianism which has been shown to increase

earnings but which many would consider a character flaw”. As one can see, Mach type people need

a specific and tailored type of leadershFip direction in order not to risk even greater negative behaviour that is detrimental for the company.

Moreover, without supervision, there are a number of tactics that can be employed by the strong Mach-type individual in an organization. One such tactic is the act of employee ingratiation, which is the main strategic behaviour used to influence others, but which can be very detrimental to the organization and other employees if taken to the extreme.

“Ingratiation, a political process to seek one's own self-interest, may be detrimental to an organization if it becomes excessive” (David A. Ralston).

In his work, Employee Ingratiation: The Role of Management, Ralston (1985) discusses the topic of the role of management on the specific set of social activities that employees have in regards to their management. The act of impressing ones superiors, be it due to their position of power and influence or other parameters, in order to obtain more power and affluence for himself, is not a new one, and has arguably been around since the beginning of man. This action is often expressed through compliments, apparent support of any action that the person in power takes, and a large number of other subtle, and not so subtle actions that will put you in a more positive light, in regards to how management or any power-figure perceives you. Ingratiation tactics is an everyday occurrence, and in most circumstances there are more than two people interacting and one has any form of formal or informal power over the other. This on a general basis can be argued to be a positive force in an organization, as it leads to a strengthened cohesion among members of a group that would not necessarily be compatible work partners otherwise. It also effectively gives people an incentive to act as calmly and controlled as they can, as it might be in their best interest to seem strong, hard-working and suited for any new higher positions that might open up. But as mentioned earlier, taken to the extreme this can have a negative effect over the organization, and Mach type people, be they employees or employers, tend to display and take advantage of this tactic. For this reason, it is interesting to see what kind of leadership style can mitigate this negative effect and transform it into something positive, as for the rest of the employees.

Another issue that comes up frequently in most organizations is that of team-work, and as such is a topic that is often brought up in job interviews held by the HR staff. As Jones defines it, “a class of

strategic behaviours illicitly designed to influence a particular other concerning the attractiveness of one’s personal qualities” (1964) Clearly such behaviours can have a strongly detrimental effect on

the organization as it could lead to a complete lack of cohesion among workers, and leave employees with a feeling that hard work is neither encouraged, appreciated nor rewarded. But, 19

(21)

with proper management, as D. A. Ralston(1985) puts it, could lead to the exact opposite, as employees perceive hard work, and support of ones co-workers as the best forms of impressing management, and therefore in the end improve one’s position within the organization.

“The best way to manage the norms and performance of intact social systems may be simply to create conditions that increase the chances that socially healthy and task effective patterns of behaviour will emerge” (Oldman and Hackman, 1981).

These conditions can be created by the management side, and as will be tested later in the

research, it is interesting to see indeed if transformational leadership can in fact create patterns of behaviour in Mach employees that bring about positive effects over the organization. Why

transformational leadership, the act of inspiring, energizing, and intellectually stimulating ones employees (Bass, 1990) can be the best form for achieving this can be said briefly as having the potential to instil employees with a greater feeling of responsibility and satisfaction of their work, changing the focus from external motivators, like perceived success control or money, to internal motivations, like satisfaction from the work, increased job autonomy etc. However, this is not necessarily always true, as it is impossible for management to realise and take note of every action that is taken by employees. As Ralston (1985) points out, merely working hard and supporting ones colleagues does not always translate into the warranted reward from the organization.

“For subordinates to exert some countervailing influence over their superiors, they often must find means other than those that are formally sanctioned by the organization, because those formally sanctioned (e.g., hard work) are not necessarily the ones that are rewarded” (Ralston, 1985)

So what about outlier-type individuals who are more cynical in their approach to organization life, and are more willing to use what is commonly perceived as “tasteless tactics” of a Machiavellian nature including but not being limited to e.g. theft of company supplies, lying, ingratiation tactics or aggrandizement of personal performance.

Finkelstein and Penner (2004) were able to identify strong connections between pro-social beliefs and the degree to which people view OCB as an integrated part of work roles. As individuals who are high-Mach are less inclined to engage in OCB, it could be possible to stipulate that they might

not see inter-personal responsibilities as an ingrained part of work-type behaviour. If this is the

case, then would Machiavellian-type employees react positively to transformational leadership and engage in increased Organizational Leadership Behaviour?

If this has a general positive or adverse effect on the overall job performance of the staffdue to the Machiavellian employee under the influence of transformational leadership, is impossible to say for certain at this point, as further research needs to be done in this category. We argue that instead

of focusing on a measurement of job performance, we will focus on the extra-role activities of employees. After all, as Bergman (2008) puts it “adaptations mediate the effects of basic

(22)

tendencies of contextual performance”. Whether or not the Machiavellian person decides to

engage in OCB or “workplace deviance” (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007) we postulate it is a matter

of correctly applied leadership. While there seems to be support for the notion that high-Mach type employees tend to prefer transactional leadership styles (Zagenczyk et al., 2011), a more strict task-for-financial reward system, we argue that the transformational leadership style has a positive effect on Machiavellian employees in regards to increasing OCB and diminishing workplace deviance. Motowidlo et al. (1997); De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009 argues that such contextual performance is strongly dependant on personality variations. This is further supported by testing of hypothesis by Bergman, Donovan, Drasdow, Overton & Henning (2008) in their work test of

Motowidlo et al. (1997) Theory of Individual Differences in Task and Contextual Performance. If this is true, that would mean that personality differences would lead to different propensities to engage in OCB, and as transformational leadership has a proven record of improving job

performance overall, increase job satisfaction and increase OCB, we postulate that it is possible, with the correctly applied Transformational leadership, to make Machiavellian employees engage in OCB as well. This assessment is further supported by the work of authors such as Hawley (2003) and Wilson et al. (1996), whom argues that due to the highly adaptive nature of Mach’s, if the interests are aligned, Mach-type employees will be genuinely interested in cooperating with colleagues, as well as engaging in pro-social behaviours. Therefore, given the broad set of tactics and tools utilized by the Mach to achieve his or her goal, high-Mach types can engage in forms of OCB given that the right incentives were presented and more beneficial behaviour enforced through the transformational leadership style. This relationship has been tested, fully or partially, so far by Dahling et al. (2009) whom found no correlation between OCB and TFL, Belschak et al. (2013) whom found a moderating effect of the TFL-OCB relationship for Mach’s and Becker and O’Hair (2007) whom found a negative relationship between OCB and Mach, given the broad set of results, the relationship merits further study, and as such form our reasoning so far we can

construct our 3rd and core hypothesis for this study.

- Hypothesis 3: TFL has a moderating effect on a Mach’s propensity to engage in OCB.

While under high TFL Mach’s will show more OCB.

(23)

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

Research Methodology and Data Gathering

his research, being quantitative in nature, is conducted from an objective perspective “that is relating to phenomenon or conditions independent of individual thought and perceptible to all observers, and relying "heavily on statistics and figures” (Jean Lee, 1992). A quantitative approach is objective and statistical, and given the research purpose of this study, it is a causal or predictive research. This identifies causality between variables and in this case test if Transformational Leadership can instil OCB in Machiavellian type employees. At this point, it has to be mentioned that the paradigm behind this study, which is the "underlying unity in terms of its basic and often 'taken for granted' assumptions, which separate a group of theorists"(Burrell & Morgan, 1979) is necessary to be mentioned in order for the reader to understand the differing assumptions that shape the whole research design and influence the mind-set behind this study. This being said, the paradigm behind this research, which defines “the underlying assumptions and intellectual structure upon which research and development in a field of inquiry is based upon” Thomas Kuhn's (1970) is Positivism. This paradigm involves hypothesis testing for finding out an objective truth that can also help predict what can happen at a future date.

As mentioned before, pre-establishing the paradigm behind this research is important, as it sets the background of thinking representing “a world view, a general perspective, a way of breaking down the complexity of the real world” Patton (1990) A paradigm is in fact “an interpretative framework, which is guided by "a set of beliefs and feelings about the world and how it should be understood and studied." (Guba, 1990; Denzin and Lincoln (2000) listed further three categories of those beliefs:

1. “Ontology: what kind of being is the human being? Ontology deals with the question of what is real.

2. Epistemology: what is the relationship between the inquirer and the known: "epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and the process by which knowledge is acquired and validated" (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996)

3. Methodology: how do we know the world, or gain knowledge of it” Denzin and Lincoln (2000)

For a better view and faster understanding of the assumptions behind this research, the paradigm with its beliefs are summarised in the table below:

T

(24)

Positivism

Ontology (=to do with our assumptions about

how the world is made up and the nature of things

Reality is independent of those who observe it, and this observation happens in an unbiased matter. : this seem to suit this research as we are dealing with causality, whose objective character cannot be denied

Epistemology (=to do with our beliefs about

how one might discover knowledge about the world)

Focus is on determining the general trend of a defined sample, which is further generalized across the entire population using statistical techniques: this suits the research, as the result of the people answering the survey are further generalized across Netherlands and across Machiavellian people.

Methodology (=to do with the tools and

techniques of research) Mathematical approach where a particular feature can be isolated and conceptualized as a variable. Deductive conclusion through

hypothesis testing: this applies again as the research uses questionnaire results to identify patterns and causalities.

Further, to understand better how this research has arrived to its conclusions, below is outlined the process and timelines I went through. The 1st and most important step was to identify what was my research question, and thus the focus of the research. Moreover, at this stage was identified which paradigm would help me find and see the results in the best light, concluding in having as a

methodology of study: questionnaires. Before this questionnaire was administered to volunteers, an in-depth literature analysis, including the writings of Machiavelli, was conducted. This whole process concluded in data gathering, structuring and analysis. To complement the analysis, conclusions and recommendations were drawn. This process can be seen also from the structure of this research.

(25)

Method:

In this empirical study, we checked how employees perceived management, as well as how they perceive their colleagues and interact with them. For the study, the choice of focus was on individuals whom work in the Netherlands and speak Dutch, as the cultural variations of other countries might skew the results. Employees were provided questionnaires along with a brief explanation of the reasons behind the research as well as some brief description of the underlying confidentiality of their responses. The respondents were given no further incentive to fill in the questionnaire other than to help support current research in the field of leadership and work-type behaviour.

As mentioned before the purpose of this empirical study is to verify and support the existing research in the field of transformational leadership and employee behaviour, as well as test the hypothesis that transformational leadership leads to increased OCB among Machiavellian employees.

In the study employees were instructed to rate their superiors in factors related to

Transformational Leadership, Ethical Leadership, The extent to which the employee trusts his supervisors, the extent to which personal goals are linked to those of the organization,

•discussion on focus and research question •chosen approcah: questionnaires

Topic Focus

•indepth analysis of previous literature •understanding Machiavelli's writings

Academic

Research

•contact with potential participants

•meeting &actual survey administration

Data Gathering

•data compiled and analysed •result summary created and conclusions drawn

Data Analysis

24

(26)

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Machiavellianism. The sources of these variables stem from the work of De Hoogh et al. for TFL, the early work of Christie and Geis for Mach and for OCB the works of Frese et al. and Morrison and Phelps.

These questions would then test for how employees see their leaders, if they feel valued by and connected career-wise to the company, and how they interact with their colleagues. The sample size totals in 65 respondents all of which, as explained, speak both Dutch and are currently working within the Netherlands. Their types of job are stretching across numerous industries but the bulk of respondents are within the financial, banking and food industry sector.

The majority of respondents have either a college (HBO) or university degree with the response rate for these being 41.53 % and 43.07% respectively, the other responses were 1.54 % for secondary school 12.31 % in middle-level application school and 1.54 % for other educational classification 41.54 % of respondents were female and 58.46 % were male. The employees that responded to the request to fill in the questionnaire had worked on average 3.1 years for their current employer, the responses varying from 1 year to 32 years.

As for the questionnaire it had 58-item questions with a point grading scale of 7, 1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree, and 4 being neutral (Likert format). A sample question for

transformational Leadership was formulated as “Does your supervisor encourage staff to think of

new ways to address problems?” or for OCB a sample questions was formulated as such “My supervisor lets me see how I can be successful by working to achieve our shared goals” a sample

question for Machiavellian would be “The best way to deal with people is by telling us what they

want to hear them”.

There were 11 questions testing for TFL, 17 questions testing for OCB and 10 questions testing for MACH used for the purpose of this study. The Cronbach’s alpha for these variables were .8 for TFL, .9 for OCB and 0.7 for MACH.

The questionnaire was supplied to me by Frank D. Belschak, and has been used by Dr. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog as part of their on-going research into transformational & transactional leadership and its effect on employee job-type effectiveness and behaviour, all credit and or any questions or inquiry regarding the specifics of the questionnaire should therefore be forwarded to them.

(27)

Research findings, Analysis and Discussion

To reiterate, for the purpose of computing the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we restate that our structural model is built on 3 variables, Transformational Leadership (TFL), OCB and

Machiavellianism. The relationship of said variables can be stated as such; among Machiavellian employees TFL leads to OCB. To test our hypotheses we created a synthetic score of the

relationship and their interactions were based on a mean-centred synthetic result, similar to the work of (Aiken & West, 1991).

List of all variables tested for:

Testing for Instilling OCB in employees and the

Machiavellian man

• Transformational leadership

• Ethical leadership

• extent employees trust supervisors

• link personal goals to organizational

goals

• OCB

• Machivellianism

(28)

- Hypothesis 1: Transformational Leadership leads to increased OCB - Hypothesis 2: Machiavellian employees do not engage in OCB

For hypothesis 1 and 2 there is some research and proof available (Bass, 1985, Yukl, 1989) yet testing will have to be done on all hypotheses. Running a linerar regresssion to test for H1 and H2, we got the below results with OCB as the dependent, and MACH and TFL as the independent

variables. There was a significant relationship between TFL and OCB with a Beta of .402, illustrating support of our initial H1.

There was however no significant relationship between MACH and OCB, H2 is therefore not

supported. We do see the negative Beta that we would expect for H2, but as p= .602, we do not see any support of H2. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .411a .169 .142 .65550

a. Predictors: (Constant), MACH, TFL

Coefficientsa

(29)

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 3.519 .627 5.609 .000 TFL .324 .094 .402 3.457 .001 MACH -.051 .098 -.061 -.525 .602

a. Dependent Variable: OCB

- Hypothesis 3: TFL has a moderating effect on a Mach’s propensity to engage in OCB. While under high TFL Mach’s will show more OCB.

Testing for our main question , H3, we got the below results. To test for this hypothesis and standardize our results we z-transformed out independent variable TFL and MACH, and created a product of the two to see what would the relationship be between MACH and OCB while under the influence of TFL.

Our adjusted R2 _{gave us the indicator that given the number of variables there is indeed a}

relationship between the TFL, MACH and OCB, although there is far from a 1-to-1 relationship present. TFL remains with a significant relationship showing a beta of .269, while MACH shows the same negative Beta of -.122 as when testing for H1 and H2, but with a significance level that makes H2 undetermined. From our test sample we see that there is in fact no empirical proof of H3, as we can see that the negative relationship between MACH and OCB increases under the influence of TFL.

The MACH_TFL construct remains statistically significant, so we have indeed seen an indication that for our respondents they engage in less OCB while under the influence of TFL. The regression analysis tells us that the hypothesis 3 has to be rejected on the basis of the dataset that was used (at 5%).

(30)

Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .473a .224 .186 .63869

a. Predictors: (Constant), MACH_TFL, MACH, TFL

Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 5.011 .079 63.158 .000 MACH -.086 .083 -.122 -1.044 .300 TFL .190 .092 .269 2.068 .043 MACH_TFL -.112 .054 -.274 -2.075 .042