THE EFFECTS OF DARK TRIAD (MACHIAVELLIANISM, NARCISSISM, PSYCHOPATHY) ON THE USE OF POWER SOURCES

Öz

Purpose of this research is to examine effects of dark triad personality traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) on the managers’ use of power sources. Data is collected from employees who work in various companies operating in different industries in Turkey through questionnaire surveys, using convenience sampling method for sampling. To measure Dark Triad personality traits Dirty Dozen scale which is developed by Jonason and Webster (2010) is used, to measure power sources Interpersonal Power Inventory (IPI) which is developed by Raven et al. (1998) is used. Exploratory Factor Analysis is conducted to dirty dozen and IPI scales which returned three and ten items respectively. Correlation and multiple regression analyses are conducted using all items, lead to find out moderate correlations between dark triad constructs, positive correlations between dark triad and personal coercion, impersonal coercion, legitimacy-position and negative correlations between legitimacy-dependence and information power sources. Also, regression analyses showed psychopathy and Machiavellianism has negative effect on information and legitimacy-dependence as well as positive effect on the use of impersonal coercion. Results indicated positive effect of narcissism and negative effect of psychopathy on the use of expert power. All three constructs are founded to have a positive effect on the use of personal coercion. Dark triad constructs are founded not to have an effect on personal reward, impersonal reward, legitimacy-equity and legitimacy- reciprocity power sources. The implications of the results are discussed and future research areas are suggested.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dark Triad
• Narcissism
• Machiavellianism
• Psychopathy
• Power Sources

KARANLIK ÜÇLÜNÜN (MAKYAVELİZM, NARSİSİZM, PSİKOPATİ) GÜÇ KAYNAKLARI KULLANIMI ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, karanlık üçlü kişilik özelliklerinin (narsisizm, psikopati, makyavelizm) yöneticilerin güç kaynakları kullanımına etkilerinin incelenmesidir. Araştırma verisi Türkiye’de farklı sektörlerde çalışmakta olan kişilere kolayda örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak anket uygulanması ile toplanmıştır. Karanlık üçlü için Jonason ve Webster tarafından 2010 yılında geliştirilmiş olan Karanlık Üçlü Ölçeği, güç kaynaklarını ölçmek için ise Raven ve diğerleri tarafındn 1998 yılında geliştirilen IPI ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Ölçeklere keşfedici faktör analizi uygulanmış, sırasıyla üç ve on boyut elde edilmiştir. Akabinde korelasyon ve çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizleri yapılarak araştırmanın hipotezi sınanmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, karanlık üçlü yapıları arasında ortalama düzeyde bir korelasyon bulunduğuna, üçlü ile kişisel cezalandırıcı, kişisel olmayan cezalandırıcı, yasal-pozisyon güç kaynakları arasında pozitif korelasyon bulunduğuna, bilgi ve yasal-bağımlılık kaynakları arasında ise negatif korelasyon bulunduğuna işaret etmektedir. Ayrıca regresyon analizleri psikopati ve makyavelizmin bilgi ve yasal-bağımlılık güç kaynakları üzerinde negatif etkisinin, kişisel olmayan cezalandırıcı güç kaynağı üzerinde ise pozitif etkisinin bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Öte yandan bulgular narsisismin uzmanlık gücü üzeride pozitif, psikopatinin ise negatif etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir. Karanlık üçlünün tüm alt boyutlarının kişisel cezalandırıcı güç üzerinde pozitif etkiye sahip olduğu, kişisel ödüllendirici, kişisel olmayan ödüllendirici, yasal-eşitlik ve yasal-karşılıklılık kaynakları üzerinde ise istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisinin bulunmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları sonuç bölümünde tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karanlık Üçlü
• Narsisizm
• Makyavelizm
• Psikopati
• Güç Kaynakları

Kaynakça

1. Ames, D. (2009), Pushing up to a point: Assertiveness and effectiveness in leadership and interpersonal dynamics. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 111–133.
2. Aydoğan, E., & Serbest, S. (2017). İş yerinde karanlık üçlü: bir kamu kuruluşunun iç denetim biriminde araştırma. Sayıştay dergisi,101,97–121.
3. Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk. Behavioral sciences & the law, 28(2), 174-193.
4. Baron, R. A. (1989), Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of type A behavior pattern and self-monitoring, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 281-297.
5. Boyle, G. J. (2008), Critique of the five-factor model of personality. Humanities & Social Sciences papers, Paper 297.
6. Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C. ve Elliot, A. (2000), Narcissism and comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 329-347. http://doi.org/cg9
7. Christie, R. C., & Geis, F. L. (1970), Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic press.
8. Cihangiroğlu, N., Teke, A., Uzuntarla, Y., Uğrak, U. (2015), Narsist kişilik eğilimleri ile kurumsal bağlılık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin analizi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 1-18.

9. Cleckley, H. M. (1964). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality. Ravenio Books.
10. Durmus B., Yurtkoru S., & Cinko M. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS’le Veri Analizi. 6th ed. Beta Basim Yayim Dağıtım.
11. Eksi, F. (2016). The Short Form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory: Psychometric Equivalence of the Turkish Version. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 1081-1096.
12. Fehr, B., Samsom, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992), The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., ve Paulhus, D. L. (2013), The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216.
14. Furtner, M. R., Rauthmann, J. F., & Sachse, P. (2011), The self-loving self-leader: An examination of the relationship between self-leadership and the Dark Triad. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 39(3), 369-379.
15. French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. (1959). The bases of social power. Classics of organization theory, 7, 311-320.
16. Geçtan, E. (2010), Psikodinamik psikiyatri ve normaldışı davranışlar (19. bs.). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
17. Gustafson, S. B., & Ritzer, D. R. (1995), The dark side of normal: A psychopathy-linked pattern called aberrant self-promotion. European Journal of Personality, 9, 147–183.
18. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. 7th Edition, Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ, 730.
19. Hare, R. D. (1985), Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7–16.
20. Hare, R. D. (2003), Manual for the revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
21. Harms, P.D., ve Spain, M.S. (2015), Beyond the bright side: Dark personality at work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64, 15-24. doi: 10.1111/apps.12042.
22. Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006), The Dark Triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331-339.
23. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological assessment, 22(2), 420.
24. Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012), The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and individual differences, 52(3), 449-453.
25. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009), Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 93–108). New York: Guilford.
26. Jones, D. N. (2014). Risk in the face of retribution: Psychopathic individuals persist in financial misbehavior among the Dark Triad. Personality and individual Differences, 67, 109-113.
27. Kanten, P., Yeşiltaş, M., & Arslan, R. (2015), Kişiliğin karanlik yönünün üretkenlik karşiti iş davranişlarina etkisinde psikolojik sözleşmenin düzenleyici rolü. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 29(2).
28. Katz, E., & Danet, B. (1966), Petitions and persuasive appeals: A study of official-client relations. American Sociological Review, 31, 811-822.
29. Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., Danet, B., & Peled, T. (1969), Petitions and prayers: A method for the content analysis of persuasive appeals. Social Forces, 47, 447-463.
30. Kipnis, D. (1976), The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., & Wilkinson, I. (1980), Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–457.
32. Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1983), “An influence perspective on bargaining within organizations.” In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 303-319). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33. Koslowsky, M. & Schwarzwald, J. (1993), The use of power tactics to gain compliance: Testing aspects of Raven's (1988) theory in conflictual situations. Social Behavior and Personality, 21, 135-144.
34. Koslowsky, M., & Schwarzwald, J. (2001), Power interaction model: Theory, methodology, and practice. In A. Lee-Chai & J. Bargh (Eds.), Use and abuse of power (pp. 195-214). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
35. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., ve Gallucci, A. (2013), Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty–Humility. European Journal of Personality, 27, 169–184. doi: 10.1002/per.1860
36. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a selfreport measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488–524.
37. McHoskey, J. (1995), Narcissism and Machiavellianism. Psychological Reports, 77, 755–759.
38. McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998), Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 192–210.
39. Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 97(3), 557.
40. Offerman, L. R., & Schrier, P. E. (1985), Social influence strategies: The impact of sex, role, and attitudes toward power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 286–300.
41. Özer, Ö., Uğurluoğlu, Ö., Kahraman, G., & Avcı, K. (2016), Hemşirelerin Karanlık Kişilik Özelliklerinin Sosyo-Demografik Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3).
42. Özsoy, E. ve Ardiç, K. (2017), Karanlık Üçlü'nün (Narsisizm, Makyavelizm ve Psikopati) İş Tatminine Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Yonetim ve Ekonomi, 24(2), 391.
43. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002), The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality, 36(6), 556-563.
44. Paunonen, S. V., Lönnquvist, J.-E., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S., & Nissinen, V. (2006), Narcissism and emergent leadership in military cadets. The Leadership Quarterly,17, 475–486.
45. Podsakoff, P. M., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1985), Field studies of French and Raven’s bases of power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 387–411.
46. Raven, B. H. (1965), Social influence and power. In I.D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371–382). New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
47. Raven, B. F., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1970), Conflict and power. In P. G. Swingle (Ed.), The structure of conflict (pp. 69-109). New York: Academic Press.
48. Raven, B.H. (1992), A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality,7, 217–244.
49. Raven, B.H. (1993), The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (Whole no. 4), 227–251.
50. Raven, B. H. (2001), Power/interaction and interpersonal influence: Experimental investigations and case studies. In A. Lee-Chai & J. Bargh (Eds.), Use and abuse of power (pp. 2 17-240). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
51. Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998), Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 307–332.
52. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principle-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890-902.
53. Schriesheim, C. A., Hinkin, T. R., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1991), Can ipsative and single-item measures produce erroneous results in field studies of French and Raven's (1959) five bases of power? An empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 106.
54. Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1999), Gender, self-esteem, and focus of interest in the use of power strategies by adolescents in conflict situations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 15–32.
55. Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Agassi, V. (2001), Captains’ leadership type and police officers’ compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 273–290.
56. Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M. and Ochana-Levin, T. (2004), Usage of and compliance with power tactics in routine versus non-routine work settings, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 385-402.
57. Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M. and Allouf, M. (2005), Group membership, status, and social power preference, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 644-655.
58. Sharma, S. (1995). Applied multivariate techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
59. Spain, S. M., Harms, P., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). The dark side of personality at work. Journal of organizational behavior, 35(S1), S41-S60.
60. Tedeschi, J.T. (1990), Self-presentation and social influence: An interactionist prospective. In M.J. Cody & M.L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 301–323). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
61. Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: perceived position power strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 122-126.
62. Yukl, G. and Falbe, C.M. (1991), The importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 416-423.