Academic journal article Canadian Social Science

Effects of Machiavellianism on Ingratiation in Organizational Settings/EFFETS DU MACHIAVÉLISME SUR LA COMPLAISANCE DANS LES ORGANISMES ORGANISATIONNELS

Academic journal article Canadian Social Science

Effects of Machiavellianism on Ingratiation in Organizational Settings/EFFETS DU MACHIAVÉLISME SUR LA COMPLAISANCE DANS LES ORGANISMES ORGANISATIONNELS

Article excerpt

Abstract:

Influential behaviour has generally been shaped by personality. In organizational research, Machiavellianism has commonly been defined as the need to develop and defend one's power and success. It is the utilisation of power to incite other people to act or believe in conformity with one's own principle and a personality disposition that involves manipulative and deceptive intent. Whereas, ingratiation is an influence tactic to obtain favour from somebody by purposeful efforts. It is depicted as subordinates' improper efforts within an organisation to enhance their interpersonal allure in the eyes of their superior. In other words, the subordinates are attempting to obtain the superior's approval with the aim of attaining favourable perquisites such as promotions and raises. Thus, such influence tactic is more often than not, a reflection of a personality trait found in Machiavellianism. On this premise, this paper elucidates the relationship between Machiavellianism and ingratiatory behaviours of subordinates in organisations.

Key words: Machiavellianism; Ingratiation; Employees; Influence; Management

Resume: Les comportements influents ont généralement été façonnés par la personnalité. Dans les recherches organisationnelles, le machiavélisme a souvent été défini comme la nécessité de développer et de défendre le pouvoir et succès de quelqu'un. L'utilisation du pouvoir peut inciter d'autres personnes à agir ou à croire en conformité avec son propre principe et une disposition de personnalité qui implique l'intention manipulatrice et trompeuse. Alors que, la complaisance est une tactique d'influence pour obtenir la faveur de quelqu'un par des efforts constructifs. Elles sont considérées comme des efforts incorrects des subordonnés au sein d'une organisation pour améliorer leur allure interpersonnelles aux yeux de leur supérieur. En d'autres termes, les subordonnés tentent d'obtenir l'approbation du supérieur dans le but d'atteindre les avantages indirects favorables telles que la promotion et l'augmentation de salaire. Ainsi, ce genre de tactique d'influence est souvent un reflet d'un trait de personnalité trouvé dans le machiavélisme. Sur ce prémisse, ce document met en lumière la relation entre le machiavélisme et les comportements de complaisance des subordonnés dans les organisations.

Mots clés: Machiavélisme; Complaisance; Employés; Influence; Gestion

1. INTRODUCTION

The key determinant to a successful leadership in an organization is the ability to influence. Influence, which is considered as the central part of managerial work, connotes the exercise of power. Therefore, in order to successfully influence others, a manager must be able to comprehend what their subordinates think. On the other hand, the desired results and resources from the employees' superiors can be secured if the said employees manage to use influence and power effectively. When existing sources of power are not available, individuals will engage in greater use of influence (Westphal, 1998).

Machiavellianism, a person's personality trait, is related with the concept of acquiring and using power to manipulate others. Machiavellian employees tend to have high need for developing and defending power and success. Machivellianism is considered for its moderating value in the correlation between enthusiasm to achieve success and influence tactics. The perspective of organizational dynamics expressed by Machiavelli has been criticized because of its honest acceptance of aggressive - and perhaps unethical - behaviours to achieve a goal. The essence of Machiavelli's assertion is the notions of power and influence.

Leaders normally call for a better understanding of how to utilize "human capital", while employees are eager to decipher how to better communicate their ideas and accomplish goals. Too many managers and leaders make poor bosses, and fewer good ones could be even better. What may come as a surprise, however, is how much the boss's effectiveness relies on the employees. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.