2022 Volume 7 Issue 1
Creative Commons License

Moral Disengagement, Organizational Broken Window, Person-Organization Fit As An Antecedent: Machiavellian Leadership


, ,
  1. Department of Education Distance, Kocaeli Vocational School, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey.

  2. Department of Private Protection and Security, Manyas Vocational School, Bandirma Onyedi Eylul University, Balikesir, Turkey.
  3. Department of Management and Organization, Bolu Vocational School, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey.
Abstract

Leadership is the use of power to influenceto motivate. In the literature, there are a good number of researches examining the relationship between leadership and work behavior. Mostly, these deal with positive leadership characteristics. The leader can direct his/her followers in a way that can cause positive or negative outputs. This research has focused on Machiavellianism, which is one of the negative leader characteristics. The main purpose of this research is to determine whether Machiavellian leadership is an antecedent of moral disengagement, broken window in organizations, and person-organization fit behaviors. Another purpose of the research is to reach the results related to the concept of the broken window. In organizations which never been addressed as a research topic in the literature. The research has been conducted on workers in the manufacturing and service industries. The scope of the research consists of 205 people. Leadership is the Quantitative approach that has been preferred in line with the research question. Confirmatory factor analysis has been applied to the data. In consequence of the analyses, goodness of fit, structural, convergent and discriminant validity and reliability values have been also measured. The proposed hypotheses have been tested by SEM. It has been determined that leader Machiavellianism is an antecedent of moral disengagement, broken window in organizations, and person-organization fit. The results of the findings have been interpreted and suggestions have been made for future research.


Keywords: Machiavellian leadership, Moral disengagement, Organizational broken window, Person-organization fit.

INTRODUCTION

Leadership is the determination of how power is used to influence others. There are many studies on the determination of the role of leadership in business behavior (Yang & Wei, 2018). Organizationally, when the leader's behaviors are to be perceived positively, positive reflections reveal themselves, and when these are to be perceived negatively, the negative ones appear. The leader’s behaviors, in that sense, can cause organizationally expected or unwanted outcomes. Authors are having examined the dark origins of the leadership related to personality (Furtner et al., 2017), having dealt with the leader and follower fit within the framework of honesty (Do et al., 2021), having researched ethical level of leadership styles (Kerse, 2021), and Machiavellian leadership in interpersonal ethical relationships. In addition to these, researchers have aimed to find the reasons that distract the leaders from ethical behavior, due to the administrative scandals (Gkorezis et al., 2015). The leader's philosophy of "everything is fair on the way to the goal" can cause unethical behaviors to enter the organizational culture (Jaiswal, 2017). As an example of unethical behavior, few studies deal with the negative consequences of Machiavellian leadership (Gkorezis et al., 2015; Stradovnik & Stare, 2018). The primary purpose of this research is to reveal the effect of moral disengagement, broken window, and person-organization fit, which is the antecedent of Machiavellian leader behaviors, with employee perception. Examining the theory of broken windows, which has not been dealt with much in organizations, is also another aim of this research.

 

Literature Review

Individuals can act on their self-interests, and it is quite normal. For the Machiavellianists, however, their self-interests come first, and it has become a behavioral strategy to manipulate others for this purpose (Clempner, 2021). According to Belschak et al. (2018), Machiavellian individuals focus strongly on their aims, and they try all means to accomplish their objectives. They design future-oriented strategies since there is a purpose behind their behavior (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). It is possible to state that Machiavellianists are rationalists. Profit-oriented planning has an impact on their behaviors, and they affect people by manipulating them for this purpose. This behavior results from a lack of empathy (Miao et al., 2019). They need to reclame, and they may be hypocritical in line with this purpose. The characteristics of the Machiavellian individual disrupt the balance of social life (Belschak et al., 2018). It is possible to call a leader a Machiavellian leader who exhibits the specified characteristics.

Life history theory can explain strategic behaviors aiming at making more use of available resources and increasing the quality of life. According to this theory, fast or slow strategies may be preferred. It can be expressed that the Machiavellian personality gets involved in the strategy of fast life (Lyons, 2019). According to the fast life strategy, Machiavellianists may exhibit planned behaviors that do not have ethical concerns to have access to resources (Dahling et al., 2009).

Social cognitive theory is another concept helping explain social behavior. According to the theory, the environmental conditions of which it is a part are also included in the scope of the evaluation while exhibiting behavior towards a determined target. Evaluation includes the process of making comparisons with people taken as references (Yavuz-Birben & Bacanlı, 2017). Social conformity finds a place within the moral values system allowing the individual to control his/her behavior. Morality offers an insight into distinguishing between "good and bad" for the individual. Every individual can control himself by his/her moral values in social life. Values, norms and rules, which make social life livable and keep the individual away from selfishness, constitute the moral system (Ellemers et al. 2019). Moral values may not always be followed, and the individual may choose to ignore his/her moral obligations, due to environmental conditions. Today, the eight socio-cognitive mechanisms, which makes moral disengagement possible, have become a phenomenon used to explain human behavior (Marquardt et al., 2021).

Social life is maintained by accepted behaviors having taken their place. This set of behaviors is expressed as tradition and custom. These behaviors do not attract attention, and these are socially considered as ''appropriate''. Social conformity is related to the acceptance by society rather than focusing on whether a behavior is "good" or "bad". To put it simply, disorderedness is also as much a socially acceptable phenomenon as order.

Many leaders have cognitive and intellectual capacities, however, what makes them special is their moral character (Kotze & Nel, 2017). Also, immoral behaviors occur when leaders accept unethical behaviors “as normal according to social conformity”. In other words, the Machiavellian leader exhibits the attitudes that support moral disengagement. As stated, this type of behavior also permeates the organizational culture.

H1: Machiavellian leadership enhances moral disengagement.

The broken window is a theory that sheds light on the research of “the relationship between the increase in crime rates, such as violence and theft in a neighborhood and physical spaces” (Wilcox et al., 2004). According to this theory, some individuals break the windows of abandoned buildings. Even if other individuals sharing the same environment do not adopt this behavior, they, later, start breaking other windows by describing this behavior as "appropriate". Thus, even a single case may cause social collapse by mobilizing the society (Bektaş et al., 2019). The broken window begins to increase when individuals do not consider the disorderedness as a problem (Gau & Pratt, 2010; Glebova et al., 2020). Criminologist state that people in the same environment, especially in areas that lack control mechanisms, can also adapt to behaviors that harm abandoned buildings. The attitude and behavior of the leader, who is a role model, will also affect the behavior of the followers.

Machiavellian leaders exhibit less ethical behavior (Belschak et al., 2018a). Strautmanis (2008) claims that ethical leadership behaviors will contribute to the repair of the broken window. In the exact opposite situation, a broken window can increase since a broken window includes deliberate actions, and whether it increases or decreases is related to the socio-psychological effects of individuals in the same environment (Williams, 2019).

The Machiavellian leader may negatively affect his/her employees, and they may stop acting in the interests of the organization. The hypothesis worked on, according to this view, is as follows:

H2: Machiavellian leadership increases broken windows.

Person-organization fit can be expressed as “the harmony or fit between the employee and the organization” (Hamstra et al., 2019). Person-organization fit also emphasizes the similarity of organizational and individual purposes. This similarity has an impact on results such as dependence and performance (Özkan & Tosun, 2020). In the literature, there is evidence that person-organization fit affects positive organizational behavior. According to Mandalaki et al., (2019), personality or other psychological characteristics also have an impact on person-organization fit. In other sayings, it is possible to see negative behaviors as a reaction in environments where there is no person-organization fit. Leadership behaviors impact the workfare of followers (Hamstra et al., 2019). According to research results by Wijewardena et al. (2017), followers feel positive emotions when they perceive managers' sense of humor positively, whereas the followers feel negative when the managers' sense of humor is negative. Emotions are reflected in behaviors. Negative leader qualities create negative work behaviors (Stradovnik & Stare, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2020). It is thought that Machiavellian leadership, which is evaluated as self-interested and manipulative, may have negative effects on employees. Ambrose et al. (2008) express that ethical values protect and develop the moral integrity of employees and cause an increase in person-organization fit. Person-organization fit of employees who exhibit attitudes according to the qualities of ethical values positively affected (Valentine et al., 2002; Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2013). It can be assumed that Machiavellianism, which ignores ethical values, will reduce person-organization fit. The hypothesis designed in line with this view is as follows:

H3: Machiavellian leadership reduces the person-organization fit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research is based on the relational screening model, and it is a causal type of research in terms of its purpose. Within this scope, descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, reliability analysis, validity analysis were used to analyze the data in the research, and lastly structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test causal relations.

The population consists of full-time employees in the production and service sector in Sakarya. The research sample, on the other hand, consists of 205 personnel actively working in production and service enterprises.

The questionnaire technique was used as a data collection method in the research. That five times the number of items in the scale suggested by Coşkun et al. (2019) and Hair et al. (2017) was taken into consideration, to determine the sample size.

Accordingly, 229 of the questionnaires, handed to 300 people, were sent back (the return rate is 76%), and 22 questionnaire forms, not answered completely, were not added to the research. 2 questionnaire forms having extreme value were also excluded from the analysis, and thus the research sample consists of 205 employees reached by convenience sampling method. While 79.5% (163) of the participants were male, 20.5% (42) were female, and 71.7% of them are married (147), 28.3% (58) are single. 40% (82) of them were high-school graduates, 15.1% (31) have an associate degree, 37.6% (77) have bachelor's degree, 7.3% (15) have a postgraduate degree, and the average of their professional experience is 12.92. According to Kline (2016), for saying that the distribution of the data set is normal, the skewness and kurtosis values of the items in the scale should not be greater than absolute 3 and 10 values, respectively. It can be said that the data set is normally distributed because the skewness and kurtosis values of the questions in the scale are within reasonable limits.

Measures

Various scales in the literature that were previously developed were examined in the determination of the scales used in the research, and a questionnaire form was created with scales among which reliability and validity scores were consistent in many studies. The demographic characteristics of the participants, leader Machiavellianism scale, moral disengagement scale, organizational broken window scale, and person-organization fit scale are included in the questionnaire, respectively. All of the scales within the scope of the research were arranged in a 5-point Likert format (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree).

 

Leader Machiavellianism Scale: The leader Machiavellianism scale, used in the study of De Hoogh et al. (2021) and consisting of eight items, was used.The five-stage technique introduced by Brislin (1980) was used in the translation process of the scale. After these stages, the scale was used in the research being evaluated for the last time by academicians who are two Turkish and three foreign language experts supporting the research.

Moral disengagement Scale: The seven-item moral disengagement scale, which was developed by Moore et al. (2011) and was adapted into Turkish by Erbaş and Perçin (2017), was used in the research.

Organizational Broken Window Scale: The organizational broken window scale, developed by Bektaş et al. (2019) and comprising of thirteen items, was used.

Person-Organization Fit Scale: A four-item person-organization fit scale, which was developed by Netemeyer et al. (1997) and was adapted into Turkish by Elçi et al. (2008), was used in the research. To be sure about whether the survey tool is reliable and valid, one pilot test was conducted on 50 participants, and the  questionnaire was terminated.

Common Method Bias Test

For minimizing the common method variance in this research, the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003) were taken into account. Accordingly, the statements about the dependent variables have been included in the questionnaire form before the independent variables, and it has been taken into consideration they not to be made of long statements, along with the reliability of the scales used. Harman's single factor method was used to confirm whether there is a common method variance trend in the study (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The number of factors that emerged as a result of factor analysis without using any rotation technique is nine, and the total amount of variance explained by these factors is 56,048%. In case the number of factors is compelled to 1, the total amount of variance explained by the factor in which all observed variables are collected in a single factor is 24.115%. It can be said that there is no common method variance error in the research data as this rate is lower than 50% variance.

Findings

The mean, standard deviation, correlation, and reliability values of the variables are shown in Table 1. That the Cronbach Alpha coefficients of the structures are between .70 and .91 demonstrates that the scales used in the research have sufficient internal consistency. It was detected that leader Machiavellianism, moral disengagement and organizational broken window (r=.34, p<.01; r=.24, p<.01, respectively), moral disengagement and organizational broken window (r=.54; p<.01) were positive, person-organization fit, leader Machiavellianism and organizational broken window (r=-.30, p<.01; r=-.17, p<.05, respectively) were negative, when the correlation values were examined.

Table 1. Mean, standard deviation, corelation and internal consistency values.

Variable

Mean

S. D.

1

2

3

4

Leader Machiavellianism

2.52

.74

(.75)

 

 

 

Moral Disengagement

2.25

.72

.344**

(.70)

 

 

Organizational Broken Window

1.84

.71

.248**

.546**

(.91)

 

Person-Organization Fit

3.13

.97

-.305**

-.127

-.177*

(.88)

  Note. N=205; *p<.05; **p<.01; r=Pearson Correlation; (Cronbach Alfa)

Measurement Model

The measurement model used in the research was tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by using the AMOS 21 program. Within this framework, it was analyzed whether the predicted structures of the scales were supported by the collected data using the maximum likelihood method.

The fitness of the measurement model to the available data was evaluated, in line with the fit indices proposed by Kline (2016). These are Absolute Fit Indices (χ2/df), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ve Comparative Fit Index (CFI). That χ2/df value χ2/df value is below 3, RMSEA and SRMR values are below .05, TLI and CFI values are above .95, among these indices shows that the model has high goodness of fit (Byrne, 2016; Kline, 2016).

It was determined that the TLI and CFI values in the measurement model were not at a reasonable level in consequence of DFA. It was detected that AVE values of leader Machiavellianism and organizational broken window were below the threshold value (.50), the AVE and MSV values of moral disengagement were low and the square root of AVE was smaller than the correlation values between the factors. Therewith, Item 1, 2, and 6th in the leader Machiavellianism scale, Item 3, 4, 6, and 7th in moral disengagement scale, Item 1, 2, and 6th in the organizational broken window scale were removed from the measurement model to increase the fit indices and MSV and AVE values. After this proceeding, it is seen that the fit index values are at a reasonable level and it meet the criteria specified for the indices, and the AVE values (leader Machiavellianism and moral disengagement) get closer to the threshold limit.

In the research, convergent and divergent validity were tested after the structural validity analysis. It is recommended that convergent validity is CR>.70; AVE>.50; CR>AVE, for discriminant validity is MSV<AVE; ASV<AVE, and the correlation between factors are <√AVE (Hair et al., 2017).

Fuller et al. (2016) also state that an AVE less than .5 but CR greater than .6 is sufficient for convergent validity. This view is also supported by various scientific studies (Çalışır et al., 2016). According to the values in the table, it is seen that CR values for each factor are greater than AVE, and AVE values are higher than MSV and ASV. In addition, the condition that the square root of the AVE values is greater than the correlation values between the factors has also been met (Hair et al., 2017; Xia & Yang, 2019).

It has been demonstrated that the model has sufficient construct, convergent and divergent validity when all these findings and results are evaluated together.

 

Table 2. Measurement model

Variable

Items

Factor Load

CR

AVE

MSV

ASV

AVE

Leader Machiavellianism

LM3

.79

.76

.45

.08

.06

.67

LM4

.62***

LM5

.67***

LM8

.58***

Moral Disengagement

MD1

.67

.72

.46

.44

.16

.68

MD2

.77***

MD5

.58***

Organizational

Broken

Window

OBW3

.73

.92

.53

.44

.14

.73

OBW4

.70***

OBW5

.66***

OBW7

.59***

OBW8

.80***

OBW9

.64***

OBW10

.79***

OBW11

.74***

OBW12

.75***

OBW13

.83***

Person- Organization

Fit

POF1

.70

.88

.65

.08

.05

.80

POF2

.95***

POF3

.74***

POF4

.72***

Fit Indexes (Before the item is deleted)

χ2/df=2.30; RMSEA=.08; SRMR=.07; TLI=.78; CFI=.79

Fit Indexes (After the item is deleted)

χ2/df=1.91; RMSEA=.06; SRMR=.05; TLI=.91; CFI=.92

Note. ***p<.001; CR=Composite Reliability; AVE=Average Variance Extracted; MSV= Maximum Shared Squared Variance; ASV=Average Shared Squared Variance

 

Structural Model

SEM was used to test the research hypotheses. The standardized path coefficients, standard deviation, t, and p values of the research model are shown in Table 3 (Figure 1).

Table 3. SEM findings

Hipotezler

Standardize β

Standart Deviation

t value

p

Results

LM à MD

.24

.11

2.52

.01**

Accepted

LM à OBW

.28

.08

3.21

.001***

Accepted

LM à POF

-.32

.09

-3.54

.000 ***

Accepted

Note. **p<.01; ***p<.001; LM= Leader Machiavellianism; MD=Moral Disengagement; OBW=Organizational Broken Window; POF= Person-Organization Fit

 

It is understood that the leader Machiavellianism has a positive and significant impact on moral disengagement and organizational broken window (β=.24, p<.01; β=.28, p<.001, respectively) when Table 3 is examined. It was observed that the leader Machiavellianism has a negative and significant effect on person-organization fit (β=-.32, p<.001). According to the findings, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 of the research were supported.

 

Figure 1. Structural model

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The determined measurement model was analyzed by using the AMOS program. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, items having low factor burden were excluded from the analysis. Construct validity, on the other hand, was obtained in consequence of repeated analysis. Convergent and divergent validity values are within reasonable limits. CR values that are than Cronbach's Alpha were also calculated for reliability. It was also detected that there was no common method variance error.

The hypotheses were checked by structural equation modeling.

The hypotheses regarding the dependent variables of moral disengagement, broken window, and person-organization fit, which is the antecedent of Machiavellian leadership, have been tested. It has been seen that Machiavellian leadership is antecedent of moral disengagement (β=.24, p<.01), organizational broken window (β=.28, p<.001), person-organization fit (β=-.32, p<.001). Therefore, hypotheses H1, H2, H3 were accepted.

The tendency of Life History Theory to make greater use of resources explains the behavior of Machiavellian leaders. Machiavellianists do not hesitate to act unethically for their purposes (Pinto et al., 2008; Dahling et al., 2009). The atmosphere originated from the attitudes and behaviors of Machiavellians also affects their colleagues (Smith et al., 2009). Belschak et al., (2018b) draw attention to the interaction of the Machiavellian personality between the leader and the follower. The relational aspect of leadership with ethics shapes the person-organization fit (DeConinck, 2015; Kerse, 2021).

CONCLUSION

Personality is a factor that cannot be changed immediately but determines the direction and framework of social relations. Therefore, it affects people's relationships with other individuals in their environment. Understanding the consequences of personality to analyze business behavior is significant. The manipulation success of Machiavellianism, which is examined under the concept of personality, may alter at a level that contradicts organizational and social values (Clempner, 2021). In this research, it was determined that the followers of the Machiavellian leader had a maladaptive effect on the person-organization fit when it was remembered that Machiavellian leaders had a lower level of ethical value than other leaders (Kerse, 2021).

It was seen that ethical values protect moral integrity (Ambrose et al., 2008). The fact that Machiavellianism does not take notice of ethical values (Pinto et al., 2008; Dahling et al., 2009) and the Machiavellian leader disrupts moral integrity and causes moral indifference has also been proven by this research.

According to the results of the research, the issue of preventing the Machiavellian followers or leaders from working together should not be ignored. It is recommended that apply the tests which can identify such personalities, and choose from the results for human resources professionals in the selection of people who will adapt to manager and teamwork.

It has been determined that personal and organizational values affect person-organization fit (Andersson et al., 2017). In this point, it is perfectly normal that the followers of the Machiavellian leader negatively affect the person-organization fit if the personal value chain involves focusing on individual purposes.

Behaviors, which individuals consider unethical, can be used to comply with the social order. Compatibly with the research results, Machiavellianism encourages breaking windows to achieve its goals. The broken window starts to increase when there is a lack of control (Wilson, 2017). The supervisory mechanism is expected to be the leader in organizations. Managing unapproved employee behaviors depends on the execution process in which the organizations pursue a n effective control, manager, leader, employee and organizational culture policy.

Limitations and Dimensions for Future Research

The research was limited to broken windows, moral disengagement, and person-organization fit, and Machiavellian leadership was examined as an antecedent of employee attitudes and behaviors. Whether the employees were Machiavellian or not has not been contained in the research. The Machiavellian leader from the perspective of an employee has been examined under this research. Relations include production-oriented business employees. The research sample consists of participants living in Turkey. The data were collected online.

The broken window, which is researched within the scope of criminology, has not been researched much in organizations. This research focuses on the broken window in organizations and reveals the existence of only one antecedent regarding the concept.

Longitudinal research, which allows the effects of Machiavellian leadership to be re-measured over some time, may be conducted in the future. Intermediary or regulatory roles that can reduce or increase the level of influence can be looked at by the outputs of the Machiavellian leadership. Whether the leaders at the administrative levels are Machiavellian leaders with their perceptions can be analyzed. The relation between the five-factor personality structure and political behaviors can be examined. Broken windows cause people to isolate themselves from the outer world and interact (Wilson, 2017). Behaviors such as cynicism, intention to leave, work stress, abnormal workplace behaviors, whistle-blowing may also be outputs of Machiavellian leadership.

Machiavellian leadership may not result in completely negative work behaviors or attitudes when that Machiavellian people act rationally is taken into consideration (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). It can also offer outputs that can be welcomed from an organizational or personal point of view, such as Robin Hood-style (Rego et al., 2017).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: None

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None

FINANCIAL SUPPORT: None

ETHICS STATEMENT: All procedures performed in the study involving human participants comply with ethical standards. This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Kocaeli University of Social Sciences with code of ethics E.86036.

References

Ahmed, I. I., Sorour, M. A., Abbas, M. S., & Soliman, A. S. (2020). Physiochemical properties of a model shortening with trans-free and low-saturated fatty acid. Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education and Research, 10(3-2020), 34-40.

Ambrose, M. L., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2008). Individual moral development and ethical climate: the influence of person-organization fit on job attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), 323-333.

Andersson, O., Huysentruyt, M., Miettinen, T., & Stephan, U. (2017). Person-organization fit and incentives: a causal test. Management Science63(1), 73-96.

Bektaş, M., Erkal, P., & Çetin, T. (2019). Adaptation of broken windows theory to businesses: scale development study. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(3), 596-617.

Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2018a). Angels and demons: the effect of ethical leadership on machiavellian employees’ work behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1082. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01082

Belschak, F. D., Muhammad, R. S., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2018b). Birds of a feather can butt heads: when Machiavellian employees work with Machiavellian leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 613-626.

Brislin, A. R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. H.C. Triandis & J.W. Berry (Ed.). Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2, (pp.389-444). Allyn & Bacon: Boston.

Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS (3rd Edn.). New York: Routledge.

Çalışır, N., Başak, E., & Çalışır, F. (2016). Key drivers of passenger loyalty: a case of Frankfurt–Istanbul flights. Journal of Air Transport Management, 53(1), 211-217.

Clempner, J. B. (2021). A manipulation game based on Machiavellian strategies. International Game Theory Review, 2150015.

Coşkun, R., Altunışık, R., & Yıldırım, E. (2019). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri SPSS uygulamalı. 10. Edition, Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık.

Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219-257. doi:10.1177/0149206308318618

De Hoogh, A. H. B., Hartog, D. N. D., & Belschak, F. D. (2021). Showing one's true colors: leader machiavellianism, rules and instrumental climate, and abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(7), 851-866.

DeConinck, J. B. (2015). Outcomes of ethical leadership among salespeople. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1086-1093. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.10.011

Do, J. H., Kang, S. W., & Choi, S. B. (2021). The effect of perceived supervisor-subordinate congruence in honesty on emotional exhaustion: a polynomial regression analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18(17), 9420. doi:10.3390/ijerph18179420

Elçi, M., Alpkan, L., & Çekmecelioğlu, G. H. (2008). The influence of person-organization fit on the employee’s perception of organizational performance. 4th International Strategic Management Conference, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovnia, 19-21, 587-593.

Ellemers, N., Van der Toorn, J., Paunov, Y., & Leeuwen, T. (2019). The psychology of morality: a review and analysis of empirical studies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(4), 332-366.

Erbaş, E., & Perçin, N. Ş. (2017). Ahlaki çözülme (moral disengagement) ölçeği Türkçe geçerlemesi ve kişi-çevre uyumu ilişkisi. AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(1), 177-190.

Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research69(8), 3192-3198.  doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008

Furtner, M. R., Maran, T., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2017). Dark leadership: the role of leaders’ dark triad personality traits. In M. G. Clark & C. W. Gruber (Eds.), Leader development deconstructed (pp. 75-99). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.

Gau, J. M., & Pratt, T. C. (2010). Revisiting broken windows theory: examining the sources of the discriminant validity of perceived disorder and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 758-766.

Gkorezis, P., Petridou, E., & Krouklidou, T. (2015). The detrimental effect of Machiavellian leadership on employees' emotional exhaustion: organizational cynicism as a mediator. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 11(4), 619-631. doi:10.5964/ejop.v11i4.988

Glebova, I. S., Anisheva, Y. A., & Gorelova, J. N. (2020). Digitalization impact on social and economic development of territory. Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education and Research, 10(3-2020), 214-219.

Hair, J. F. J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), (2nd ed.). CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks.  

Hamstra, M. R. W., Van Vianen, A. E. M. & Koen, J. (2019). Does employee perceived person-organization fit promote performance? The moderating role of supervisor perceived person-organization fit. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(5), 594-601, doi:10.1080/1359432X.2018.1485734

Jaiswal, P. (2017). Impression management tactics and need for power: moderating role of Machiavellian organizational culture. (Bhatt, P., Jaiswal, P., Majumdar, B. & Verma, S. Eds.). Riding the New Tides: Navigating the Future through Effective People Management pp. 148-154. New Delhi: Emerald Group Publishing.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3): a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28-41.

Kerse, G. (2021). A leader indeed is a leader in deed: the relationship of ethical leadership, person-organization fit, organizational trust, and extra-role service behavior. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(3), 601-620. doi:10.1017/jmo.2019.4

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th Edn.). London: The Guilford Press.

Kotzé, M., & Nel, P. (2017). Personal factor effects on authentic leadership. Journal of Psychology in Africa27(1), 47-53.

Lyons, M. (2019). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy in everyday life. Academic Press.

Mandalaki, E., Islam, G., Lagowska, U., & Tobace, C. (2019). Identifying with how we are, fitting with what we do: personality and dangerousness at work as moderators of identification and person–organization fit effects. Europe's Journal of Psychology15(2), 380.

Marquardt, D. J., Casper, W. J., & Kuenzi, M. (2021). Leader goal orientation and ethical leadership: a socio-cognitive approach of the impact of leader goal-oriented behavior on employee unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics172(3), 545-561.

Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., Qian, S. & Pollack, J. M. (2019). The relationship between emotional intelligence and the dark triad personality traits: a meta-analytic review. Journal Research in Personality, 78, 189-197.

Özkan, O.  S. & Tosun, B. (2020). The mediating role of person-organization fits in the relationship between psychological capital and intrapreneurship. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 16(2), 326-345.

Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2008). Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt individuals? Two types of organizational-level corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 685-709. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.32465726

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Rego, P., Lopes, M. P., & Simpson, A. V. (2017). The Authentic-Machiavellian leadership grid: a typology of leadership styles. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11(2), 48-51.

Ruiz-Palomino, P., Martínez-Cañas, R., & Fontrodona, J. (2013). Ethical culture and employee outcomes: the mediating role of person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 173-188.

Smith, P. C., McTier, K., & Pope, K. (2009). Nonprofit employees’ Machiavellian propensities. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(3), 335-352.

Stradovnik, K., & Stare, J. (2018). Correlation between Machiavellian leadership and emotional exhaustion of employees: case study: Slovenian municipalities. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(8), 1037-1050.

Strautmanis, J. (2008). Employees’ values orientation in the context of corporate social responsibility. Baltic Journal of Management, 3(3), 346-358.

Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Lucero, M. (2002). Ethical context, organizational commitment, and person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 349-360.

Wijewardena, N., Härtel, C. E. J. & Samaratunge, R. (2017). Using humor and boosting emotions: an affect-based study of managerial humor, employees’ emotions and psychological capital. Human Relations, 70(11), 1316-1341.

Wilcox, P., Quisenberry, N., Cabrera, D. T., & Jones, S. (2004). Busy places and broken windows? toward defining the role of physical structure and process in community crime models. The Sociological Quarterly, 45(2), 185-207.

Williams, M. (2019). Broken windows theory in workplace management & business strategy, https://www.rancord.org/broken-windows-theory-business-management-strategy, (Accessed date: 20.04.2021).

Wilson, J. R. (2017). When evil deeds have their permissive pass: broken windows in William Shakespeare’s measure for measure. Law and Humanities, 11(2), 160-183. doi:10.1080/17521483.2017.1371953

Xia, Y. & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409-428.

Yang, Q., & Wei, H. (2018). The impact of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior The moderating role of workplace ostracism. Development Journal, 39(1), 100-113. doi:10.1108/LODJ-12-2016-0313

Yavuz-Birben, F. & Bacanlı, H. (2017). Adapting moral disengagement scale to Turkish: validity and reliability study purpose of the study. YILDIZ Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 1-25.

 


How to cite this article
Vancouver
Üzüm B, Özkan OS, Çakan S. Moral Disengagement, Organizational Broken Window, Person-Organization Fit As An Antecedent: Machiavellian Leadership. J Organ Behav Res. 2022;7(1):29-41. https://doi.org/10.51847/54QfKceM1p
APA
Üzüm, B., Özkan, O. S., & Çakan, S. (2022). Moral Disengagement, Organizational Broken Window, Person-Organization Fit As An Antecedent: Machiavellian Leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior Research, 7(1), 29-41. https://doi.org/10.51847/54QfKceM1p
Issue 1 Volume 10 - 2025