CC BY
21
Organizational Psychology, 2023, Vol. 13, No. 1, P. 59-72. DOI: 10.17323/2312-5942-2023-13-1-59-72
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
www.orgpsyjournal.hse.ru
The role of responsible leadership in relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows
Burcu UZUM
ORCID: 0000-0001-8675-8952
Bandirma Onyedi Eylul University, Balikesir, Turkey
Abstract. Is it possible to see a livable world from a corporate social responsibility perspective? It can be possible to find the answer for this question through responsible leadership since corporate social responsibility is managed by responsible leaders and the need for responsible leaders is increasing day by day in the 21st century. Purpose. This research aims to determine the effect of responsible leadership on Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows, and to examine the moderating role of responsible leadership in the relationship between Machiavellian behaviors of employees and organizational broken windows, based on theories of corporate social responsibility and self-regulation. Methodology. Therefore, a quantitative method was preferred in the research and a questionnaire form was used as a data collection tool. Participants are employees who are not in a managerial position at a manufacturing enterprise in Istanbul. Voluntarily, 218 participants gave support to the research with the simple random sampling method. Data were analyzed by using SPSS Statistics 25.0 and SmartPLS 3.3.7 software. The relationship between the variables in the research were measured by "Structural equation modeling based on the partial least squares method". The scale used in the research were subjected to reliability and validity tests at the measurement model stage. In the structural model analysis, the research model and hypotheses were tested to reveal the direction of relationships between the latent variables. Findings. In the consequence ofthe analysis, Machiavellianism has positive effect on organizational broken windows, whereas responsible leadership has negative impact on Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows. Furthermore, it was detected that responsible leadership has a moderator role in the relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows.
Keywords: corporate social responsibility, Machiavellianism, organizational broken windows, responsible leadership.
Corporate social responsibility may not be solely enterprises' own choice, however, it can be expressed as the attempts to increase the quality of environment, customer, employee and social life by assuming voluntary obligations with more effort (McWilliams, Siegel, 2001; Garavan, McGuire, 2010). With this aspect, corporate social responsibility concept, which focuses on the quality of life,
Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey
Osman Seray ÖZKAN
ORCID: 0000-0001-5326-8930
Introduction
Address: 41140 Basiskele, Kocaeli, Turkey
E-mail: burcugokay@gmail.com
assuming actions to satisfy all stakeholders (Liang, Renneboog, 2017). It is stated that the satisfied stakeholders are shareholders (Ferrell et al., 2016), customers (Servaes, Tamayo, 2013), government (Kitzmueller, Shimshack, 2012) and employees (Rhoades, Eisenberger, 2002). Besides, it is specified that an exchange system based on satisfaction is provided for these stakeholders.
The concept of leadership, containing a wide literature, coincides with the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which is predicted to be able to overcome problems such as income inequality, environmental pollution, unemployment, and hunger. The responsible leader, who acts in line with the stakeholder theory and puts the CSR into effect, is expected to take into account the achievements of all stakeholders and make decisions that prevent conflicts (Voegtlin, 2011). The responsible leader creates added value as an accountable, reliable, authoritative power by focusing on moral virtues as well as interacting with all stakeholders (Maak, 2007; Cameron, 2011; Waldman, Galvin, 2008).
C. Voegtlin provides an opportunity to empirically examine responsible leadership (Voegtlin, 2011). He attracts attention to the need to clarify the conditions that increase or decrease Machiavellianism (De Hoogh et al., 2021). T. M. Marques and C. Miska emphasizes that empirical studies are conducted at the micro level, however, the researches on responsible leadership in the world and Turkey is still very new to the concept (Haque et al., 2019; Marques, Miska, 2021). In the consequence of literature research, this study aims to answer the calls of researchers who examine these concepts by combining the concepts of Machiavellianism, organizational broken windows, and responsible leadership from the CSR framework. This research includes the concept of Responsible Leadership, which can moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows, and differs from previous research.
Review of literature
There seems to be an increasing interest in the theory of corporate social responsibility, which combines leadership roles with ethics (Gorski, 2017). The theory of corporate social responsibility offers a moderating structure that struggles to gather the satisfaction of all stakeholders under a single denominator. In terms of an organizational point of view, this structure can be built with leadership behaviors. To put it another way, the power to direct employees in a corporate social responsibility perspective lies on the leaders' hands. It is seen that this power held by the leaders forms the behavioral outputs of the subordinates under corporate social responsibility umbrella (Cropanzano, Mitchell, 2005; Shen, Zhu, 2011). At this point, the role of positive leader behaviors which supports the corporate social responsibility practices should not be ignored. In other aspects, these cause positive outcomes in the context of dependence, employee performance, job commitment, organizational belonging, high performance and low job stress while these enable that organizations gain high credibility in the eyes of the society (Kim et al., 2010; Shen, Zhu, 2011; Stites, Michael, 2011; Svergun, Fairlie, 2020). However, it should not be forgotten that corporate social responsibility is an initiative implemented by the organization but carried out by the responsible leader. Due to sudden changes, socio-economic and environmental challenges push leaders to develop their skills and find creative solutions to problems while CSR provides a framework that enables all stakeholders to find constructive solutions (Gorski, 2017).
It is argued that the leader plays part in control mechanism in organizations and that the attitudes and behaviors of the leader, who is a role-model, have impact on the behaviors of the followers (De Hoogh et al., 2021). Organizational broken windows are derived from the broken windows theory. It is a theory that paves the way for the investigation of the relationship between the increase in social crime rates such as violence and theft in a neighborhood and physical spaces (Kelling, Wilson, 1982;
Wilcox et al., 2004). The theory defines a metaphor for people who break the windows of abandoned buildings and even those who do not adopt this behavior, break the remaining windows by describing this behavior as "appropriate". In other words, even a single incident can evoke the society and cause corporate collapse, either socially or organizationally (Skogan, 1990). Crime scientists state that people in the same environment can also adapt themselves to harmful behaviors, especially arise from the lack of "moral" control mechanism (Harcourt, Ludwig, 2006; Kelling, Coles, 1996; Skogan, 1990; Kelling, Wilson, 1982). According to the theory, moral collapse accelerates, ethical values break away and what is not accepted as right begins to be perceived as right when the focus is on losses rather than gains. This situation is also witnessed in organizations (Jones, 2010). The physical conditions of the organization, the quality of the working environment, trust and social relations create an image about the organization for external stakeholders as well as internal stakeholders. This also applies to potential internal stakeholders. Having a positive image is a step towards gaining legitimacy. According to the broken windows theory, sanctions should be regulated for gains that include all stakeholders in the basic philosophy of CSR, rather than losses (Tyler, 2009).
Machiavellian behavior can be exhibited as a way to increase gains. Manipulating behaviors, which aimed at increasing the share of welfare with behaviors towards the need for approval without using the ability to empathize, define the Machiavellian personality (Miao et al., 2019). Machiavellians can make all kinds of plans for this cause by being strongly attached to their goals (Belschak et al., 2018b). Machiavellianism helps the leader to retain "power" by gaining it with her / his attributes. She / he can also adopt traits such as "having compassion, being sensitive, loyal or devout'' whenever she / he wants (Gaunder, 2001). Machiavellians utilize these traits for their own gains (Gaunder, 2001) and also for the priorities they set. Machiavellianism was associated with harmful behaviors and their forms (Den Hartog, Belschak, 2012; Rehman, Shahnawaz, 2018). A. H. B. De Hoogh with colleagues discussed Machiavellianism, self-interested negative relations such as abusive control and the instrumental climate, in the the context of the mild-mannered effect of the rules climate (De Hoogh et al., 2021). B. Uzum with colleagues, on the other hand, leader Machiavellianism as antecedent of organizational broken windows in the manufacturing sector (Uzum et al., 2022). The hypothesis formed in line with the conceptual definitions and the relations deal with is shown below.
H1: Machiavellianism has a positive and significant impact on organizational broken windows.
Gains may involve all stakeholders. Individuals, with this aspect, can move away from ethical behaviors since their cognitive resources are exhausted while making their choices among alternatives (Joosten et al., 2014). Sometimes what is ethical for the organization may not be ethical for other stakeholders. Leaders take the lead for employees to get rid of this dilemma (Trevino, 1986). In the consequence of examining the role of responsible leadership in the organizational hierarchy, it was detected that it reduces unethical behaviors (Cheng, 2019). Leaders, who are role models for their employees, are seen as a source guiding ethical behaviors at this point (Walumbwa et al., 2011 ). It can be claimed that the choices of the leaders with this aspect of them to ensure the balance between the stakeholders can make a difference in their perception on internal stakeholders (employees). It is anticipated that responsible leaders will direct their employees to ethical behavior and to behaviors that focus on the gains that provide the repair of oganizational broken windows. The hypothesis formed in this regard is as follows.
H2: Responsible leadership has a negative and significant effect on organizational broken windows.
Machiavellians do not always display their bad side, and they drow a parallel between Machiavellianism and "Robin Hood" (Den Hartog, Belschak, 2012; Rego et al., 2017). Behavior that takes from the rich and gives to the poor can evoke feelings of compassion / sensitivity. The exchange between rich and poor, on the other hand, can be performed unethically. Hand-over behavior becomes more acceptable, thanks to responsible leadership. In the context of CSR, responsible leadership
can positively affect the perception of employees whose personal inclination is Machiavellian. The conditions that increase or decrease Machiavellianism could not be fully clarified (De Hoogh et al., 2021). Machiavellianism also reveals acceptance, approval and the ability to act rationally to achieve these goals (Joosten et al., 2014; Belschak et al., 2018a). With this aspect, the Machiavellians want to determine their own destiny. However, it can be assumed that self-regulation is a real person's preference while CSR is a legal entity's choice. Self-regulation theory enables that a person makes comparisons between gains and losses to determine her / his own destiny, and thus it presents answers about how gains can be maximized (Mithaug, 1993). Self-regulation allow person to select behavior towards the goals. The responsible leader is the person who carries out the CSR, and it is possible to state that she / he can moderate the Machiavellian traits. The hypothesis established in this regard is presented below.
H3: Responsible leadership has a negative and significant impact on Machiavellianism.
The fact that self-regulation increases the level of personal well-being was determined (Busch, Hofer, 2012). This thought includes Machiavellianism as a personality trait while it contains all stakeholders within the framework of the CSR. Individuals, who adopt predominant Machiavellian personality traits, are less inclined to behave ethically (Minett et al., 2009). In the context of corporate social responsibility, Machiavellians may reveal unethical behaviors while they seek approval from stakeholders, since they will deplete their self-regulatory resources (Joosten et al., 2014). In fact, broken windows can be repaired when the leader acts ethically (Strautmanis, 2008). The decrease or increase in broken windows is an example of conscious and voluntary behavior (Ren et al., 2017). Individuals, who are in the same working environment, have impact upon each other socio-psychologically (Williams, 2019). It is advocated that the leader-subordinate interaction will affect Organizational Broken Windows in this situation.
It was express that the responsible leader harms organizational performance when she / he overvalues CSR practices (Javed et al., 2020). Responsible leadership is expected to make long-term management plans (Ozkan, 2022), however, there is also a planning process in Machiavellianism, it is motivated to achieve its goals (Belschak et al., 2018a). If the leader's behavior causes her / him to exhibit unethical behavior, her / his subordinates will also tend to exhibit the same behavior (Mayer et al., 2009). In the consequence of this situation, it is suggested that stakeholders may be harmed by the current interaction. On the other hand, it is thought that the ethical behaviors of the leader can develop resistance against the unethical behaviors of the subordinates. In the recent study of responsible leadership undertakes a moderator role in the relationship between the reputation created by CSR and financial performance (Javed et al., 2020). It is predicted that responsible leadership can bring a solution to the relationship between leader Machiavellianism, which K. H. Jones suggested and B. Üzüm with colleagues identified as the antecedent of organizational broken windows, by changing the conditions (Jones, 2010; Üzüm et al., 2022). The hypothesis, which was established in line with the aspect of this research differing from previous ones, is given below:
H4: Responsible leadership has a moderator role in the relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows.
Method
Sample and procedure
In the research, a quantitative approach was adopted to determine the effects and moderator role of responsible leadership based on corporate social responsibility in the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows (Üzüm et al., 2022). CSR has
become a current issue in order to balance environmental and social performance with developing technologies, economic reforms, and globalization. CSR has an observable impact on organizations (Liao, Zhang, 2020). Research on socially responsible management (e.g. responsible leadership) may protect stakeholders and help organizations in the service and manufacturing sectors achieve sustainable competitive advantage.
In this context, the population of the research consist of employees (357) who are not in a managerial position in a company operating in the manufacturing sector in Istanbul, consistent with previous researches (Han et al., 2019; Haque et al., 2019; Ullah et al., 2021). Among these employees, 218 participants voluntarily supported the study by employing the convenience sampling method. However, since the responces of 22 participants to control question were found to be wrongful, these were not taken into consideration, and the research was carried out on on 196 employees. Y. Yazicioglu and S. Erdogan expressed that the number of samples should be 217 in a population size of 500, a confidence interval of 95%, and a sample error of .05 (Yazicioglu, Erdogan, 2004). When the number of participants is taken into consideration, the sample size of research is sufficient.
Research data were collected by face-to-face survey method, and the data collection process was carried out between January - February 2022. Along with the survey forms, sticky envelopes were given to the participants in order that they can answer to the questions more reliably and accurately. A small piece of chocolate was placed inside the envelopes in order to promote participation in the research and increase the motivation to respond.
Several measures were taken to minimize common method variance in the research. Firstly, the participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the employees were encouraged to participate in the surveys voluntarily, and a privacy policy was created. Secondly, a control question was added to the questionnaire to increase the reliability of the results. Finally, there are questions regarding organizational broken windows and Machiavellianism in the first part of the questionnaire. The second part includes responsible leadership questions, which are both predictive and regulatory variables while there are demographic questions in the last part (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
The research hypotheses were tested on the structural equation model (SEM). SEM is a technique which is more powerful than the regression approach and examines the relations of theoretical and empirical researches (Cicek et al., 2021). The measurement and structural model of the research was calculated by the SmartPLS 3.3.7 software.
Measures
A questionnaire form, consisting of four part, was used to collect the data for the research. Except for organizational broken windows, all of the original scales were developed in English and adapted to Turkish by the researchers. A 5-point Likert-type interval scaling was used for the scales, and the participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement from 1 to 5 in the statements.
Machiavellianism
The Machiavellianism scale, consisting of eight items and applied in the research of A. H. B. De Hoogh with colleagues , was used (De Hoogh et al., 2021). The scale was adapted into Turkish language (Üzüm et al., 2022). In the questionnaire, the participants were asked to evaluate themselves through the statements in the scale. "The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear" was one of the questions on the scale. The Cronbach's Alpha value of the scale was found to be .75.
Organizational broken windows
The organizational broken windows scale, consisting of thirteen items and developed by M. Bekta§ with colleagues, was used (Bekta§ et al., 2019). In the questionnaire, the participants were asked to evaluate themselves through the the statements in the scale. "I do not feel the need to give
feedback because the employees of the organization do not give feedback." is one of the statements in the scale. The Cronbach's Alpha value of the scale was calculated as .91.
Responsible leadership
The five-item responsible leadership scale, developed by C. Voegtlin and adapted into Turkish by O. S. Özkan and B. Üzüm, was used (Özkan, Üzüm, 2021; Voegtlin, 2011). In the survey, the participants were asked to evaluate their leaders through the statements in the scale. ''My leader has awareness of the expectations of different stakeholders" is one of the statements in the scale. The Cronbach's Alpha value of the scale was detected as .91.
Control variables
Except for the estimation variables, the effect of the variables that are likely to affect the dependent variable were immobilized in the research. The effect of professional experience, which is among the demographic variables, was checked out in this research since it showed a significant correlation with the dependent variable in the model. Professional experience was measured as a continuous variable in the research.
Findings
Reliability and validity analysis
The results of the analysis regarding the reliability and validity of the measurement model are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Results of factor loadings, Cronbach's a, CR and AVE
Variables Item Factor load a — CR — AVE
Corporate broken windows (CBW) CBW1 .57 (.91) — (.93) - (.51)
CBW2 .60
CBW3 .78 (CR > AVE)
CBW4 .73
CBW5 .70
CBW6 .55
CBW7 .63
CBW8 .80
CBW9 .72
CBW10 .80
CBW11 .73
CBW12 .74
CBW13 .84
Machiavellianism (M) M3 .79 (.71) - (.81) - (.47)
M5 .61
M6 .57 (CR > AVE)
M7 .73
M8 .68
Responsible leadership (RL) RL1 .89 (.91) - (.93) - (.73)
RL2 .83
RL3 .87 (CR>AVE)
RL4 .82
RL5 .85
Heterotrait-monotrait ratio criterion
CBW M RL
Corporate broken windows - - -
Machiavellianism .59 - -
Responsible leadership Model summary .10 .22 -
R2 Q2 VIF
CBW .30 .15 -
M .03 .01 -
M —> CBW - - 1.03
RL —> CBW - - 1.04
RL —> M - - 1.00
Note: a = Cronbach's Alpha; CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted; R2 = Explained variance; Q2 = Predictive relevance; VIF = Variance inflation factor.
It is realized that there is no linearity problem between the variables since VIF values are below the threshold value (< 5). When the R2 values obtained from the model are taken into account, it is seen that organizational broken windows is explained by the estimation variable at a rate of 30%, whereas Machiavellianism at a rate of .03%. The fact that the Q2 value in the table is greater than zero reveals that the research model has the potential to predict organizational broken windows and Machiavellian variables (Hair et al., 2017).
When the values in Table 1 are examined, the findings of Cronbach's a (> 0.7), composite reliability (> 0.7), average variance explained (> .40) and factor values (.55 / .89) indicate that internal consistency reliability and convergent validity are provided in the model (Fornell, Larcker, 1981).
However, the first, second and fourth items of the Machiavellianism Scale were excluded from the measurement model in order to increase the AVE values, owing to the low factor values. On the other hand, items with a factor load below .708 were not excluded from the model since the CR and AVE values calculated for all constructs were above the threshold value (Hair et al., 2017). The fact that the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) coefficients are below the threshold value (< .85) shows that discriminant validity is provided and that the structures are separate factors from each other (Henseler et al., 2015).
Common method variance examinations
Harman's single factor method was employed to test the common method variance bias in the research since the data were obtained from a single source through the questionnaire (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In the consequence of the analysis, the number of factors revealed is four and the total variance explained by these factors is 53.2%. When the number of factors is decreased to 1, the amount of variance explained in a single factor is 29.9%. It shows that that the common method variance in the research has a minimal effect on the findings since this value is lower than 50% (Kline, 2015).
Descriptive statistics and correlations
The mean, standard deviation and correlation values of the variables in the research were obtained by using the IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 sofware (Table 2). It is seen that there is a positive relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows (r = .45) when the correlation values are examined. Also, there is a negative relationship between responsible leadership, Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows (r = - .10; r = - .06, respectively).
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and correlations values
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1. Machiavellianism 2.60 .72 1
2. Corporate broken windows 1.88 .74 .45** 1
3. Responsible leadership 3.30 1.05 - .10 - .06 1
4. Tenure 10.09 8.91 -.26** - .24** - .003 1
Note. N = 196; ** — p < .01; Tenure in years.
Hypotheses testing
Partial least squares — structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to test the research hypotheses of the research, and the obtained path coefficients and the significance levels of the coefficients are illustrated in Figure 1.
RL1 RL2 RL3 RL4 RL5
6.318 6'77 S-445 6.574
10.406
-¡¿T Machiavelliani
sm
.823
_.487 0.133(0.013) 17248
3W6
o
Tenure
CBW9
Figure 1. Structural model and coefficients Table 3. Results of moderator test using bootstrap
Effects Path coefficient SD f-value p-value
M —> CBW .459 .054 8.42 .000***
RL —> CBW -.015 .070 .212 .833
RL —> M -.187 .094 2.00 .04*
Tenure —> CBW -.133 .054 2.47 .01*
Moderating effect Path coefficient SD f-value CI (% 97.5)
Moderating effect 1 —> CBW .236 .075 3.16** .049; .338
Note: * — p < .05; *** — p < .001; M = Machiavellianism; CBW = corporate broken windows; RL = responsible leadership; CI = confidence intervals.
In line with the results, it is seen that Machiavellianism has a positive and significant impact on organizational broken windows (0 = .459; p < .001). This finding supports Hypothesis 1. It is found that the effect of responsible leadership on organizational broken windows is negative and insignificant (0 = -.015; p > .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is partially supported. Responsible leadership affects Machiavellianism negatively and significantly (0 = -.187; p < .05). And thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported. Furthermore, professional experience which was added to the model as a control variable has a negative and significant effect on the dependent variable (0 = -.133; p < .05).
In the research, moderating impact analysis was tested by a sample size of 5000 and a 95% confidence interval. In the consequence of the analysis, it was observed that responsible leadership has a moderator role (0 = .236; p < .001) in the relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows. It can be said that the effect is significant since the calculated confidence interval values [.048; .335] does not include the zero value. This result supports Hypothesis 4. The slope graph created by the SmartPLS sofware for the moderating effect is illustrated in Figure 2. The slope graph was created by considering the mean of the responsible leadership variable and ± 1 standard deviation values. It is seen that the change in the degree of relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows depends on the levels of responsible leadership when the graph is examined.
Moderating Effect 1
-1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Machiavellianism
Responsible Leadership at -1 SD Responsible Leadership at Mean Responsible Leadership at+1 SD
Figure 2. Slope graph
Implications and limitations
This research is based on the Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), and in the the macro framework, the role of CSR-based responsible leadership in moderating the relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows was revealed. In the consequence of the research, a result, which is similar to the determination of Machiavellianism as the antecedent of organizational broken windows was obtained (Uzum et al., 2022). However, it has been proven that responsible leadership has the ability to suppress Machiavellian behavior. Through this role, responsible leadership exerts an influence on the subordinate's ability to self-regulate. Inserting responsible leadership as a moderator into the relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows is the contribution of the research to the field of organizational
behavior. And thus, responsible leadership enables a moderate atmosphere that reduces the breaking of windows in the specified relations. Responsible leadership's ability to add value to social change has been for the perception of followers at the micro level (Pless, Maak, 2011). This research attracted attention to the organizational outcome of the leader's personal characteristics perceived by the followers (Marques, Miska, 2021). It can be said that responsible leadership allows self-regulation. Moreover, it is possible to express that CSR practices positively affect employee behaviors with the effect of responsible leadership, and these practices contain the power to moderate the relationship between Machiavellianism and organizational broken windows.
It was determined that Machiavellians can provide outputs for the benefit of both the organization and the society in the continuation of the policies towards stakeholder theory by acting rationally (Jones, Paulhus, 2014) even if it is stated that Machiavellianism reflects the dark personality trait (Den Hartog, Belschak, 2012). It was detected that organizations take an active role, which can provide exchange between stakeholders with the responsibilities they undertake in the global or local context through their leaders (Ozkan, Uzum, 2021). The constructive power of responsible leadership was reinforced by the result of this research as previously stated (Cheng, 2019).
The analysis of business behavior presents important clues regarding management by enabling to see the cause-effect relationship. A quantitative approach was adopted in this research on responsible leadership. A qualitative or mixed method may be preferred in order to obtain more detailed results. The concepts, which are the subject of the research, have been measured by employee perception. At this point, multi-source research can be done. The research includes the employees in the manufacturing sector, and it consists of participants living in Turkey. A research, which is on the leader's self-perception and even includes all stakeholders, can be designed in the future. Another suggestion is to carry out longitudinal studies at the micro and meso levels.
Conclusion
As the business worlds the ability to use the power that supports sustainable development, increases the level of social life and creates value among the institution, employees and other stakeholders, responsible leadership's "constructive-reparative" ability was identified in the Turkish sample. CSR contains a motivation that encourages ''living humanely'' embracing business and society.
References
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. Front. Psychol., 9, 1082. 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. J Bus Ethics, 151, 613-626. Bekta§, M., Erkal, P., £etin, T. (2019). Adaptation of broken windows theory to businesses: Scale development study. Ankara Haci Bayram Veli Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Faktiltesi Dergisi 21(3), 596-617.
Busch, H., Hofer, J. (2012). Self-regulation and milestones of adult development: Intimacy and
generativity. Developmental Psychology, 48(1), 282-293. Cameron, K. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 25-35.
Cheng, K., Wei, F., Lin, Y. (2019). The trickle-down effect of responsible leadership on unethical pro-organizational behavior: The moderating role of leader-follower value congruence. Journal of Business Research, 102, 34-43.
Cicek, B., Turkmenoglu, M. A., Ozbilgin, M. (2021). Examining the mediating role of organisational support on the relationship between organisational cynicism and turnover intention in technology firms in Istanbul. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-12.
Cropanzano, R., Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., Belschak, F. D. (2021). Showing one's true colors: Leader Machiavellianism, rules and instrumental climate, and abusive supervision. J Organ Behav., 42, 851-866.
Den Hartog, D. N., Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work engagement and Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 35-47.
Ferrell, A., Liang, H., Renneboog, L. (2016). Socially responsible firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 122, 585-606.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic planning: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston.
Gaunder, A. L. (2001). Leadership looming large: Political self-regulation in Japan. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Garavan, T., McGuire, D. (2010). Human resource development and society: Human resource development's role in embedding corporate social responsibility, sustainability and ethics in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), 487-507.
Gorski, H. (2017). Leadership and corporate social responsibility. International Conference Knowledge-Based Organization, 23(1), 372-377.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Han, Z., Wang, Q., Yan, X. (2019). How responsible leadership predicts organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in China. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40, 305-318.
Haque, A., Fernando, M., Caputi, P. (2019). The relationship between responsible leadership and organisational commitment and the mediating effect of employee turnover intentions: An empirical study with Australian employees. J. Bus. Ethics., 156, 759-774.
Harcourt, B. E., Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a five-city social experiment. The University of Chicago Law Review, 73(1), 271-3 2 0.
Henseler, J., Christian, M. R., Marko, S. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115-135.
Javed, M., Rashid, M. A., Hussain, G., Ali, H. Y. (2020). The effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and firm financial performance: Moderating role of responsible leadership. Corp. Soc. Resp. Env., 27, 1395-1409
Joosten, A., Dijke, M. V., Hiel, A. V., Cremer, D. (2014). Being ''in control'' may make you lose control: The role of self-regulation in unethical leadership behavior. J. Bus. Ethics., 121, 1-14.
Jones, K. H. (2010). Broken windows, broken business. Book reviews. URL: http://www.achievemax. com/bookreviews/broken-windows-broken-business/ (Access date: 24.04.2021).
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.
Kelling, G. L., Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kelling, G. L., Wilson, J. Q. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29-38.
Kim, H. R., Lee, M., Lee, H. T, Kim, N. M. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and employee-company identification. J. Bus. Ethics, 95, 557-569.
Kitzmueller, M., Shimshack, J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, 50, 51-84.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
Liang, H., Renneboog, L. (2017). On the foundations of corporate social responsibility. The Journal of Finance, 72(2), 853-910.
Liao, Z., Zhang, M. (2020). The influence of responsible leadership on environmental innovation and environmental performance: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Corp. Soc. Responsib Environ. Manag., 1-12.
Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 329-343.
Marques, T. M., Miska, C. (2021). Responsible leadership. Global Encyclopedia ofPublic Administration, Public Policy and Governance, 1-4.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1-13.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.
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.
Minett, D., Yaman, H. R., Denizci, B. (2009). Leadership styles and ethical decision-making in hospitality management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 486-493.
Mithaug D. E. (1993). Self-regulation theory: How optimal adjustment maximizes gain. Praeger Publishers / Greenwood Publishing Group.
Ozkan, O. S. (2022). Sorumlu liderlik. In B. Üzüm (ed.), Güncel Kavramlarla Orgütsel Davranip. Konya: Egitim Yayinevi.
Ozkan, O. S., Üzüm, B. (2021). Sorumlu liderlik: Bir ólfek uyarlama fali§masi. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 19(4), 199-212 .
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.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T. (2011). Responsible leadership: Pathways to the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 3-13.
Rehman, U., Shahnawaz, M. G. (2018). Machiavellianism, job autonomy and counterproductive work behaviour among Indian managers. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 34, 83-88.
Ren, L., Zhao, J. S., He, N. P. (2017). Broken windows theory and citizen engagement in crime prevention. Justice Quarterly, 36(1),1-30.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
Servaes, H., Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59, 1045-1061.
Shen, J., Zhu, C. J. (2011). Effects of socially responsible human resource management on employee organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15), 3020-3035.
Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stites, J. P., Michael, J. H. (2011). Organizational commitment in manufacturing employees: relationships with corporate social performance. Business & Society, 50(1), 50-70.
Strautmanis, J. (2008). Employees' values orientation in the context of corporate social responsibility. Baltic Journal of Management, 3(3), 346-358.
Svergun, O., Fairlie, P. (2020). The interrelated roles of corporate social responsibility and stress in predicting job outcomes. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 1-18.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.
Tyler, T. R. (2009). Legitimacy and criminal justice: The benefits of self-regulation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 307-359.
Ullah, I., Wisetsri, W., Wu, H., Shah, S. M. A., Abbas, A., Manzoor, S. (2021). Leadership styles and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The mediating role of self-efficacy and psychological ownership. Front. Psychol, 12, 683101.
Üzüm, B., Ozkan, O. S., £akan, S. (2022). Moral disengagement, organizational broken window, person organization fit as an antecedent: Machiavellian leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior Research, 7(1), 29-41.
Voegtlin, C. (2011). Development of a scale measuring discursive responsible leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 57-73.
Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M. (2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 327-341.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204-213
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. Retrieved from: https://www.rancord.org/broken-windows-theory-business-management-strategy.
Yazicioglu, Y., Erdogan, S. (2004). SPSS uygulamali bilimsel araptirmayontemleri. Detay Yayincilik, Ankara.
Received 04.03.2022
Роль ответственного лидерства в связи между макиавеллизмом и «разбитыми окнами в организации»1
УЗЮМ Бурджу
ORCID: 0000-0001-8675-8952 Университет Коджаэли, Коджаэли, Турция
ОЗКАН Осман Серай
ORCID: 0000-0001-5326-8930 Университет Эйлюл, Балыкесир, Турция
Аннотация. Можно ли увидеть пригодный для жизни мир с точки зрения корпоративной социальной ответственности? Вероятно, ответ на этот вопрос удастся найти при ответственном руководстве. Потому что в 21 веке корпоративной социальной ответственностью управляют ответственные лидеры, и потребность в ответственных лидерах растёт день ото дня. Цель. Это исследование направлено на определение влияния ответственного лидерства на макиавеллизм и «склонность к подражанию девиантному организационному поведению», а также на изучение регулирующей роли ответственного лидерства в отношениях между макиавеллист-ским поведением сотрудников и склонностью к подражанию девиантному организационному поведению на основе теории корпоративной социальной ответственности и саморегулирования. Метод. В связи с этим в исследовании был принят количественный метод, а в качестве инструмента сбора данных использовалась анкета. Участниками являлись сотрудники, не занимающие руководящую должность в учреждении, работающем в производственной сфере в г. Стамбуле, Турция. С помощью простого метода случайной выборки 218 участников добровольно приняли участие в исследовании. Данные были проанализированы с помощью программ SPSS Statistics 25.0 и SmartPLS 3.3.7. В исследовании отношения между переменными измерялись с помощью моделирования структурными уравнениями на основе метода частичных наименьших квадратов. Измерительные шкалы, использованные в исследовании, были подвергнуты тестированию на надёжность и валидность на этапе разработки модели измерения. В ходе структурного моделирования были проверены ключевая исследовательская модель и четыре гипотезы, чтобы выявить направленность связей между латентными переменными. Результаты. В результате анализа выяснилось, что макиавеллизм вносит положительный вклад в склонность к подражанию девиантному организационному поведению. Было обнаружено, что ответственное руководство вносит негативный вклад в макиавеллизм и склонность к подражанию девиантному организационному поведению. Кроме того, установлено, что ответственное руководство играет регулирующую роль в отношениях между макиавеллизмом и склонность к подражанию девиантному организационному поведению. Сформулированы предложения для будущих исследований в соответствии с намеченными перспективами.
Ключевые слова: корпоративная социальная ответственность; макиавеллизм; склонность к подражанию девиантному организационному поведению; ответственное лидерство.
1 Теория разбитых окон (англ. broken windows theory, BWT) — криминологическая теория, рассматривающая мелкие право-
нарушения не только как индикатор криминогенной обстановки, но и как активный фактор, влияющий на уровень преступности в целом [Wilson, J. Q., Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 211, 29-38]. Название происходит от приводимого авторами теории примера её проявления: «Если в здании разбито одно окно, и никто его не заменяет, то через некоторое время в этом здании не останется ни одного целого окна». В русскоязычном академическом тексте «организационные разбитые окна» стилистически явно не подходит для названия психологической переменной. Исходя из формулировок пунктов используемой в данной статье «Шкалы разбитых окон в организации» [Bekta§, M., Erkal, P., ^etin, T. (2019). Adaptation of broken windows theory to businesses: Scale development study. Ankara Haci Bayram Veli Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Faktiltesi Dergisi, 21(3), 596-617], мы предлагаем следующее название: «склонность к подражанию девиантному организационному поведению». Прим. ред.
