Winning at all costs: An exploration of bottom‐line mentality, Machiavellianism, and organisational citizenship behaviour

Winning at all costs: An exploration of bottom‐line mentality, Machiavellianism, and organisational citizenship behaviour. Gabi Eissa, Rebecca Wyland, Scott W. Lester, Ritu Gupta. Human Resource Management Journal, May 23 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12241
 
Abstract: This study seeks to advance the bottom‐line mentality literature by exploring an antecedent and outcome of employee bottom‐line mentality. We build and test a moderated‐mediation model by arguing that the personality trait of Machiavellianism promotes an employee's adoption of a bottom‐line mentality. Moreover, drawing on trait activation theory, we argue that this relationship is fully activated when the employee perceives that the organisation endorses a bottom‐line mentality. To expand our theoretical model, we also suggest that employee bottom‐line mentality inhibits organisational citizenship behaviour directed towards co‐workers. Lastly, we investigate whether an employee's perception of an organisation's bottom‐line mentality conditionally moderates the indirect effect of Machiavellianism on organisational citizenship behaviour directed towards co‐workers through the mediated mechanism of employee bottom‐line mentality. Our theoretical model is tested across two distinct studies. Study 1, a field study conducted within a variety of organisations, provides evidence for our initial predictions (Hypotheses 1 and 2). Study 2, a multisource field study conducted in multiple industries, replicates and extends the findings from Study 1 by providing evidence for the entire moderated‐mediation model. We find support for our hypothesised model across both studies. Implications for theory and practice are discussed, and suggestions for future research are identified.

4 | DISCUSSION

The purpose of the current investigation was to build and test a model of both antecedents and consequences of employee BLM. In Study 1, we examined the interaction effect of Machiavellianism and employee perception of an organisation's BLM onto employee BLM. Using trait activation theory, the findings from Study 1 found that Machiavellianism was positively related to employee BLM, and the employee perception of an organisation's BLM
amplified this relationship, suggesting that both Machiavellianism and employee perception of an organisation's BLM are highly associated with employee BLM. Moreover, Study 2 replicated the findings from Study 1 and further examined how employee BLM is likely to be associated with low levels of OCBI, suggesting that employee perception of the organisation's BLM may serve as a conditional moderator of the Machiavellianism–employee BLM–OCBI relationship. As expected, our moderated‐mediation model (Figure 1) was supported by the findings across two distinct studies, providing insights as to why and when employee BLM is promoted and a potential consequence that ensues.

This research provides a theoretical foundation that will facilitate future examinations of the construct of BLM. Although previous research suggests that developing a BLM may be detrimental to organisations and its members (Greenbaum et al., 2012), our research represents a departure from the current BLM research (e.g., Bonner et al., 2017; Mawritz et al., 2017) to help identify reasons that prompt employees to fully express this mentality. Our goal was to identify a personality trait that is associated with self‐interest; because self‐interest is typically associated with developing a BLM (Eissa, Wyland, & Gupta, 2018; Greenbaum et al., 2012). Machiavellianism is a personality trait often associated with cynicism and a focus on the self (Dahling et al., 2009). Therefore, in this research, we argue that employee BLM may occur when employees possess the dark personality trait of Machiavellianism, though not all employees are equally likely to have this dark predisposition activated in the same way.

To examine a boundary condition of the Machiavellianism and employee BLM relationship, we drew on trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) and arguments from prior research (e.g., Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) to build a theoretical model that accounts for levels of employee perceptions of an organisation's BLM. This investigation adds to prior research employing trait activation theory (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2017) suggesting that environmental cues may activate or even enhance a personality tendency within employees. In other words, the Machiavellianism personality trait may be fully prompted when employees perceive that the environment of their organisation aligns with their own self‐interested, controlling, manipulative, and distrustful nature. As such, we argued that employees with high levels of Machiavellianism are more likely to pay attention to information within their environment that endorses their own self‐goals. Overall, our findings offer a credible contribution to theory by suggesting Machiavellianism as a key component influencing the expression of employee BLM. Furthermore, our study is among the first to advance the literature by exploring a boundary condition that influences the impact of Machiavellianism on employee BLM, namely perceptions of
organisation's BLM.

Consistent with prior research that calls for an examination of consequences of employee BLM (Greenbaum et al.,
2012), this current investigation explored the notion that employee BLM may inhibit employee engagement in positive behaviours such as OCBIs. We relied on prior BLM research (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2012; Sims & Brinkmann, 2002, 2003; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999; Wolfe, 1988) to argue that employee BLM can encourage a narrowly focused, unidimensional, game‐like mentality among employees. Those who have this mentality are more likely to become driven to see others lose and less likely to engage in behaviours that may help others succeed. The current investigation is important because BLM is common and likely to affect how employees approach interpersonal work relationships as well as their willingness to be cooperative with others, which are key determinants of long‐term organisational success and survival (Piccolo et al., 2012). This way, the current research contributes to the literature by offering empirical support for the link between employee BLM and OCBI—a relationship that is frequently discussed in the literature but has received little empirical attention despite its strong theoretical presumption. Altogether, the theoretical underpinnings of the current investigation enabled us to contribute to the BLM literature by presenting a moderated‐mediation model that explains why and when employee BLM is likely to occur and subsequently reduce cooperation among employees at work.


4.1 | Managerial implications

Although many organisations are in business to achieve success, an exclusive, the‐ends‐justify‐the‐means focus on bottom‐line outcomes can lead to negative consequences. The popular press features numerous reports of the problems that can arise when employees adopt a BLM. Earlier in this paper, we used the Enron scandal as an illustration. Another example is the use of subprime mortgage lending in an effort to circumvent capital requirements (Stiglitz, 2010). Clearly, when bottom‐line outcomes (e.g., profit) are valued over everything else, it may encourage employees to act in their own self‐interest, even if it involves engagement in unethical behaviours (Greenbaum et al., 2012) or refraining from positive ones that hinder their own goal attainment. Although delivering results is key to success, employers must comprehend that a narrow, unidimensional focus on achieving results (i.e., BLM) is not ideal and that, to be effective, organisations must create a workplace environment that not only focuses on achieving bottom‐line outcomes, but also fosters positive and moral behaviours. When employees avoid opportunities to collaborate and help each other out, the implication is that the likelihood of teamwork and synergy is greatly diminished. Hence, the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation is likely to be compromised. Therefore, organisations need to be aware of the adverse influence of employee BLM on collaboration and teamwork. This awareness will allow organisations to create a workplace environment that values a variety of important organisational outcomes so that the chances of overall company success are amplified.

Another implication of the current findings is that the personality trait of Machiavellianism is related to the likelihood of falling prey to a BLM, especially when working in an environment that is perceived to value and prioritise achieving the bottom line over everything else. We found that Machs are more likely to adopt a BLM and less likely to engage in OCBI. Employers and human resource managers who are involved in the hiring process could pay attention to personality traits such as Machiavellianism and try to avoid hiring those who tend to have a cynical outlook and a heightened focus on self‐interest. The current findings suggest that Machs would likely embrace an environment of unhealthy competition in the presence of a perceived BLM in an organisation. As discussed, Machs' efforts to succeed or get ahead would likely come at the expense of the long‐term health of the organisation.


4.2 | Limitations and future research

Although the current research makes multiple noteworthy contributions to the literature, it is not without limitations. First, cross‐sectional data were collected in both of our studies, which may limit definitive conclusions regarding the causality among the proposed relationships. However, we have utilised two distinct samples and relied on well-documented theories to provide evidence for the direction of our variables. Nonetheless, future research could replicate our model by using various research methods including collecting longitudinal data or conducting experimental designs to provide further support for our model. Second, we examined OCBs directed at organisational members, namely co‐workers, as a form of positive and moral behaviour that could be limited by employee BLM. We focused on OCB directed towards organisational members because previous BLM research suggests that BLM impacts interpersonal relationships (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2012; Wolfe, 1988). Although this made theoretical sense, it would be interesting if future studies examined citizenship behaviours directed towards the organisation as a whole (i.e., OCBOs) to see if any differences exist based on the target of these behaviours. For example, whereas some OCBs are driven by a desire to make the organisation better, other forms of OCBs are less altruistic and more calculative in nature (e.g., OCBs that are completed as a means of impression management; e.g., Bolino, 1999). Thus, it is plausible that employee BLM might increase some types of OCBOs because these employees are trying to impress their employer by giving back to the organisation. However, it is also plausible that employees who possess a BLM might ignore OCBOs because they are so focused on their own bottom‐line outcomes that they essentially ignore all types of OCBs. Either way, a more complete understanding of the relationships between different types of OCBs and employee BLM would be informative.

Our research supported Machiavellianism as an antecedent of individual adoption of BLM. Yet, this is but one antecedent. Future research should examine other potential antecedents of employee BLM. For example, the presence of incentive pay may also help predict BLM. When incentive pay exists, one would expect that a singular focus on monetary rewards, particularly among those motivated by pay, should increase the likelihood of a BLM. Furthermore, whether incentives are determined at the individual, group, or organisational level should impact whether a BLM develops. Specifically, we would expect a BLM to be more prevalent when individual incentives are used. Group and organisational level incentives frequently require some type of collaboration, which is at odds with the notion of having to defeat your colleagues in order to win. In sum, future research would benefit from exploring additional antecedents of BLM to help answer the question of why employees adopt such mentality.

Additionally, the concept of perception of organisation's BLM may be within the same nomological network as other constructs. For example, (un)ethical climate or transactional psychological contracts (e.g., Zagenczyk et al., 2014) may reveal similar relationships to the constructs presented in our proposed model. Therefore, future research could further explore the relationships between perceived organisation's BLM and other similar constructs to gain a better understanding of the theoretical and empirical distinctions that may exist. Finally, future researchers could move the literature forward by exploring additional moderators that might mitigate (or exacerbate) the dysfunctional relationship between Machiavellianism, employee BLM, and reductions in OCBI. For example, we argued that Machs “will do whatever it takes” to achieve success. As such, it can also be theorised that individuals high in Machiavellianism may at times perform seemingly altruistic behaviours for the sole reason of creating the impression that the recipient needed the help and is incapable of performing the job. This would suggest a positive relationship between BLM and OCBI. Our results indicate a rather low (but significant) relationship. This could be interpreted as an indication of the existence of moderators. Although this is beyond the scope of the current article, it is one potentially fruitful area for future research. One promising moderator might be ethical leadership. Ethical leadership is “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two‐way communication, reinforcement, and decision‐making” (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005, p. 120).

As noted by Piccolo et al. (2012), “ethical leadership may be effective in preventing a nearly exclusive focus on bottom‐line outcomes” (p. 295). Thus, ethical leadership likely weakens the proposed relationships presented in our model. Future research would benefit from exploring this assertion and additional moderators that may explain antecedents and consequences of BLM as presented in Figure 1. In conclusion, we encourage future research to build on these first steps by taking a more comprehensive look at the antecedents, moderators, and consequences of employee BLM as this field of research moves forward.