نقش رفتار ماکیاولی بر اعتماد بین فردی : نقش میانجی رفتار منافقانه (مورد مطالعه دبیران زن شاغل در دبیرستان های دخترانه شهر ایلام )

محورهای موضوعی : زن و جامعه

محمدرضا اردلان ¹ , اردشیر شیری ² , فرزانه سلطانقلی ³ , قدرت اله رحیمی ⁴

1 - دانشیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران.
2 - دانشیار گروه مدیریت، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران.
3 - دانشجوی دکترای مدیریت آموزشی گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران.
4 - کارشناس ارشد مدیریت بازرگانی (گرایش بازاریابی)، گروه مدیریت، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه پیام نور مرکز کرمانشاه، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1399/02/28 تاریخ پذیرش : 1401/05/04 تاریخ انتشار : 1401/08/01

کلید واژه: "ماکیاولیسم", "رفتارهای منافقانه در ارتباطات بین فردی", "اعتماد بین فردی", " دبیران زن",

چکیده مقاله :

هدف پژوهش بررسی نقش ماکیاولیسم در کاهش اعتماد بین فردی با میانجی گری رفتارهای منافقانه در ارتباطات بین فردی بود. جامعه پژوهش کلیه دبیران زن شهر ایلام بودند، که به روش نمونه گیری تصادفی ساده و بر مبنای فرمول کوکران نمونه‌ای به حجم 221 نفر انتخاب شد. روش پژوهش کمی، توصیفی و از نوع مطالعات همبستگی و خاصاً مدل‌یابی معادلات ساختاری است.از پرسشنامه رفتارماکیاول گری خلد شرفی و شیری (1394)، پرسشنامه رفتارهای منافقانه در ارتباطات بین فردی هادوی نژاد(1390) و پرسشنامه محقق ساخته اعتماد بین فردی استفاده شد. جهت تعیین پایایی و روایی ابزار، از ضریب آلفای کرانباخ و تحلیل عاملی تائیدی استفاده شد. جهت تحلیل داده‌ها از تکنیک‌ تحلیل مسیر تاییدی با استفاده از نرم افزار lisrel استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد: متغیر ماکیاولیسم دارای اثر مستقیم منفی (42/0-)، اثرغیر مستقیم منفی (092/0-) و اثر کل منفی (512/0-) و معنادار بر متغیر اعتماد بین فردی در سطح 05/0 می باشد. متغیر رفتارهای منافقانه دارای اثر مستقیم منفی (25/0-) و معنادار بر متغیر اعتماد بین فردی در سطح 05/0 می باشد. متغیر ماکیاولیسم با ضریب مسیر غیر مستقیم بواسطه رفتارهای منافقانه (092/0-) و مقدار تی (29/3-)دارای اثر غیرمستقیم، منفی و معنادار بر اعتماد بین فردی در سطح 05/0 می باشند.

چکیده انگلیسی:

The aim of the study was to investigate the role of Machiavellianism in reducing interpersonal trust by mediating hypocritical behaviors in interpersonal communication. The research population was all female teachers of Ilam city, which was selected by simple random sampling method and based on Cochran's formula of a sample with a volume of 221 people. The research method is quantitative, descriptive and correlational studies and especially structural equation modeling. Khald Sharafi and Shiri Behavioral Behavior Machinery Questionnaire (2015), Haddavi Nejad Interpersonal Behavioral Communication Questionnaire (2011) Questionnaire and Interpersonal Trust Builder Questionnaire were used. . To determine the reliability and validity of the instrument, Cranbach's alpha coefficient and confirmatory factor analysis were used. For data analysis, the confirmation path analysis technique was used using lisrel software. The results showed: Machiavellian variable has a direct negative effect (-0.42), a negative direct effect (-0.92) and a total negative effect (-0.512) and is significant on the interpersonal confidence variable at the level of 0.05. . The variable of hypocritical behaviors has a negative direct effect (-0.25) and is significant on the interpersonal trust variable at the level of 0.05. Machiavellian variables with indirect path coefficient due to hypocritical behaviors (-0.92) and T-value (3.29) have an indirect, negative and significant effect on interpersonal trust at the level of 0.05.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Dehnavi F, Ahmadi SAA. The Explanation of Components And Measuring Of Interpersonal Trust:  In Social Security Organization. Organ Behav Stud Q [Internet]. 2014;2(3):21–4. Available from: http://obs.sinaweb.net/article_12066.html

2. Salam SC. Foster Trust through Competence and Integrity. In: The Blackwell Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behaviour [Internet]. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2017. p. 285–99. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405164047.ch19

3. Shiri A, Sharafi SK, Dehghani M, Yasini A. Examining the Relationship between Managers’ Narcissism and Hypocrisy Behaviors With the Moderator Role of Managers’ Machiavellian Behavior in Governmental Organizations of Kermanshah City. Q J Public Adm [Internet]. 2014;3(11):97–114. Available from: https://ipom.journals.pnu.ac.ir/article_2074.html

4. ebrahiminasab  reza, motaghi  hossein, ghezelayagh M. Investigating the Mediating Role of Interpersonal Trust in Relation between Self-Efficiency and Workplace Friendship. Organ Behav Stud Q [Internet]. 2019;8(3):153–80. Available from: http://obs.sinaweb.net/article_37252.html

5. Ricks J, Fraedrich J. The paradox of Machiavellianism: Machiavellianism may make for productive sales but poor management reviews. Vol. 20, Journal of Business Ethics. 1999. p. 197–205.

6. Pranata A, Yanuar T, Syah R, Anindita R. Interpersonal Trust Impact on Moderate Customer Satisfaction by Product Quality and Brand Image. J Multidiscip Acad. 2020;4(1).

7. Greenbaum RL, Hill A, Mawritz MB, Quade MJ. Employee Machiavellianism to Unethical Behavior: The Role of Abusive Supervision as a Trait Activator. J Manage. 2017;43(2):585–609.

8. Czibor A, Szabo ZP, Jones DN, Zsido AN, Paal T, Szijjarto L, et al. Male and female face of Machiavellianism: Opportunism or anxiety? Pers Individ Dif. 2017;117:221–9.

9. Szabó E, Jones DN. Gender differences moderate Machiavellianism and impulsivity: Implications for Dark Triad research. Pers Individ Dif. 2019;141:160–5.

10. Lease SH. Assertive behavior: A double-edged sword for women at work? Clin Psychol Sci Pract [Internet]. 2018 Mar;25(1). Available from: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1111/cpsp.12226

11. Mostafa Hadavinejad;, Elaheh Baharlouiie.  Hypocritical behaviors in interpersonal communications in organization: organizational antecedents and consequences. J Public Adm [Internet]. 2015;7(2):393–412. Available from: https://www.sid.ir/en/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=577387

12. Hadadian Z, Navidi H, Digehsara KS, Sabet FZ. Hypocritical Behavior and Organization Size: A Game-theory Approach. Mediterr J Soc Sci [Internet]. 2015;7(1):159. Available from: https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/8656

13. Hadavinejad M, Danaeifard H, Azar A, Khaef Elahi A. Exploring the Process of “Hypocritical Behaviors in Interpersonal Communication in the Workplace” Using Grounded Theory. Strateg Manag Thought [Internet]. 2010;4(1):81–130. Available from: https://smt.journals.isu.ac.ir/article_138.html

14. Currall SC, Inkpen AC. A multilevel approach to trust in joint ventures. J Int Bus Stud [Internet]. 2002;33(3):479–95. Available from: https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:jintbs:v:33:y:2002:i:3:p:479-495

15. Afsar B, Badir Y, Khan MM. Person-job fit, person-organization fit and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of innovation trust. J High Technol Manag Res. 2015;26(2):105–16.

16. Afsar B, Al-Ghazali BM, Cheema S, Javed F. Cultural intelligence and innovative work behavior: the role of work engagement and interpersonal trust. Eur J Innov Manag. 2020;24(4):1082–109.

17. Holtz BC. Trust Primacy: A Model of the Reciprocal Relations Between Trust and Perceived Justice. J Manage. 2013;39(7):1891–923.

18. Johnson-George C, Swap WC. Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1982;43(6).

19. Schindler PL, Thomas CC. The Structure of Interpersonal Trust in the Workplace. Psychol Rep [Internet]. 1993 Oct 1;73(2):563–73. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pr0.1993.73.2.563

20. Tan HH, Tan CSF. Toward the Differentiation of Trust in Supervisor and Trust in Organization. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr. 2000;126(2):241–60.

21. Lammers J, Stapel DA, Galinsky AD. Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychol Sci. 2010 May;21(5):737–44.

22. Shiri A, Yassini A, Hosseini AS. Investigating the effect of organizational culture on hypocrisy in the organization with the mediating role of spreading rumors in the layers of the organization. Q J Manag Gov Organ [Internet]. 2019;7(4):214-243. In Persion. Available from: http://obs.sinaweb.net/article_34646.html

23. Moberg DO. Holy Masquerade: Hypocrisy in Religion. Rev Relig Res [Internet]. 1987 Sep;29(1):3. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3511949?origin=crossref

24. Jones EE. Ingratiation. Ingratiation. East Norwalk,  CT,  US: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1964.

25. Ralston DA. Employee Ingratiation: The Role of Management. Acad Manag Rev. 1985;10(3):477–87.

26. SADEQI ARANI Z, Namian  F. A Meta-analysis of the Drivers and Barriers of Hypocritical Behavior in the Organizations: An Investigation of the Iranian Organizations. J Islam Manag [Internet]. 2020;28(1 #r001354):125–48. Available from: https://www.sid.ir/en/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=816292

27. Lundberg CC, Argyris C, Schon DA. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. Vol. 20, Administrative Science Quarterly. Oxford,  England: Jossey-Bass; 1975. 306 p.

28. Deutsch M, Gerard HB. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1955;51(3).

29. Chandler JA, Petrenko O V., Hill AD, Hayes N. CEO Machiavellianism and Strategic Alliances in Family Firms. Fam Bus Rev [Internet]. 2021 Mar 15;34(1):93–115. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0894486520938890

30. Ghanbari S. The Role of Machiavellianism in the Incidence of Fraudulent Financial Reporting and Earnings Management in Financial and Credit Institutions Samen Al-Hujaj. Institute of Higher Education Parandak; 2017.

31. Dahling JJ, Whitaker BG, Levy PE. The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism Scale. J Manage [Internet]. 2009 Mar 5;35(2):219–57. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206308318618

32. Valentine S, Fleischman G. The Impact of Self-Esteem, Machiavellianism, and Social Capital on Attorneys’ Traditional Gender Outlook. J Bus Ethics. 2003;43(4):323–35.

33. Shafer WE, Wang Z. Machiavellianism, social norms, and taxpayer compliance. Bus Ethics [Internet]. 2018 Jan;27(1):42–55. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/beer.12166

34. Murphy PR. Attitude, Machiavellianism and the rationalization of misreporting. Accounting, Organ Soc [Internet]. 2012 May;37(4):242–59. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0361368212000414

35. Hargis MB. A pxs perspective on perceptions of corporate transgressions: The influence of personality and account giving. [Internet]. Vol. 67, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 2006. p. 2865. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc5&NEWS=N&AN=2006-99022-195

36. Ghaffari R, Ahmadi M, Rostamniya Y. Hypocrite Organization the Fruit of an Undesirable Organizational Culture: the behavioral Archetype of Machiavellian Managers and their Impression Management. Organ Behav Stud Q [Internet]. 2019;7(4):139–64. Available from: http://obs.sinaweb.net/article_34651.html

37. hakimi  iman. Hypocritical Behaviors and Organizational Deviance: Explaining the Mediating Role of Interpersonal Trust and Organizational Silence. Organ Behav Stud Q [Internet]. 2019;8(3):181–206. Available from: http://obs.sinaweb.net/article_37253.html

38.Eshgarf R. Identification and ranking the effective factors affected hypocritical behaviors in State-owned companies and provide solutions based on Islamic texts: case study Parsian Gas Refinery Co . Organ Cult Manag [Internet]. 2018;16(48):305–25. Available from: https://www.magiran.com/paper/1898309

39. zare  amin, alizadeh  hossein, sepehry  saeid. Relationship between bully leadership and hypocritical behavior: the role of perceived climate of silence and interpersonal trust. Transform Manag J [Internet]. 2018;10(2):149–78. Available from: https://tmj.um.ac.ir/article_29564.html

40. Karami F, Yusefi B. Relationship between Interpersonal Trust & Political Behaviors with Conflict Resolution Style among Employees of Chosen Physical Education. Sport Manag Stud [Internet]. 2014;5(21):195–218. Available from: https://smrj.ssrc.ac.ir/article_247.html

41. Abdolmaleki, J; Rashidi Z. Lisrel in simple language. Tehran Sociologists Publications; 2012.

42. Zin SM, Ahmad N, Ngah NE, Ismail R, Ibrahim N, Abdullah IHT. Effects of Machiavellianism on Ingratiation in Organizational Settings. Can Soc Sci. 2011;7(2):183–90.

43. Egan V, Hughes N, Palmer EJ. Moral disengagement, the dark triad, and unethical consumer attitudes. Pers Individ Dif [Internet]. 2015 Apr;76:123–8. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S019188691400703X

44. Dehghani Soltani M, Mesbahi M, Mirzasadeghi N. Studying The Effect of Toxic Leadership on Organizational Trauma: The Intermediating Role of Hypocrisy and Machiavellian Behaviors. J Hum Resour Manag [Internet]. 2020;10(3):159–84. Available from: https://www.sid.ir/en/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=770375