Model of the Role of Organizational Orientations and Machiavellianism on Nonverbal Immediacy Behavior and Job Satisfaction

The current study examined the relationships of organizational orientations and Machiavellianism with nonverbal immediacy and job satisfaction in the organizational context. Participants included 160 full-time employees who worked at various for profit or non-profit organizations in the Mid-Atlantic area. Results indicated that the organizational orientations (i.e., upward mobile, ambivalent, and indifferent) and Machiavellianism were significant predictors of employee nonverbal immediacy and job satisfaction. The results were consistent with a preliminary theoretical model of relationships among these individual differences and organizational outcomes. Alan K. Goodboy & James C. McCroskey 289 Toward a Theoretical Model of the Role of Organizational Orientations and Machiavellianism on Nonverbal Immediacy Behavior and Job Satisfaction Competent organizations are concerned with fostering employee perceptions of job satisfaction. Research has consistently demonstrated that job satisfaction leads to valuable organizational outcomes such as an increase in job performance, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior (Crede, Chernyshenko, Stark, Dalal, & Bashshur, 2007; Huang & Hsiao, 2007; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984; Riketta, 2008). However, whether or not an employee is satisfied in the workplace is largely determined by individual differences (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006) and organizational communication behavior (Madlock, 2006, 2008; Richmond & McCroskey, 2000). Two individual differences of importance in the workplace include organizational orientations and personality traits (McCroskey, McCroskey, & Richmond, 2005; McCroskey, Richmond, Johnson, & Smith, 2004). Considering past research, the aim of this study was to assess individual differences (i.e., organizational orientations, Machiavellianism) as potential predictors of employee communication behavior (i.e., immediacy) and job satisfaction. Organizational Orientations The term “organizational orientations” refers to the various ways people approach their roles in an organization and the different approaches people have toward work and the place of work in their lives (Richmond & McCroskey, 2001). Three organizational orientations have been identified: upward mobile, indifferent, and ambivalent. The upward mobile orientation refers to workers who possess a strong desire to be promoted and advance within the organization. These individuals are very devoted to their career and tend to identify with the organization. Considering that much of upward mobile individuals’ lives revolve around their careers, they frequently exert the extra effort needed to be a successful employee. The indifferent orientation refers to workers who are committed to their jobs as a means of earning a living. These individuals are primarily concerned with their paychecks, as their lives, in their view, exist mostly outside of the workplace. Working is a necessary means of having that life, but nothing more. The ambivalent orientation refers to workers who tend to be highly critical of any job and seem to find problems with any organization. These individuals are quite unpredictable and never truly accept any given organization. Ambivalents tend to frequently change jobs, looking for the “perfect” organization. Management usually has no problem seeing ambivalents leave the organization. The organizational orientations concept was advanced decades ago in the field of management (Presthus, 1962) but has just recently drawn the attention of quantitative researchers in the field of communication. McCroskey et al. (2004) conducted research that explained a great deal about the relevance of this concept to organizational communication. In their study, the researchers validated their research measures for the three organizational orientations and determined that organizational orientations are correlated with temperament variables. Canonical correlation analysis determined that the temperament variables of extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism were substantially correlated with the three organizational orientations. Also, organizational orientations were found to predict job satisfaction. Furthermore, McCroskey et al. Nonverbal Immediacy Behavior and Job Satisfaction 290 (2005) discovered that perceptions of supervisor credibility were related negatively to the indifferent and ambivalent orientations. Machiavellianism Another individual difference, Machiavellianism, is a trait that involves strategically manipulating others for person gain, often against the other’s self-interest (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). It was conceptualized by Christie and Geis (1970), in their book Studies In Machiavellianism. According to Christie and Geis (1970), high Machs manipulate people to their advantage and tend to have little emotional involvement in their interpersonal relationships. Previous research gives an accurate depiction of the characteristics and predispositions of the Machiavellian individual. High Machs are less altruistic (Barber, 1994), more likely to cheat (Flynn, Reichard, & Slane, 1987), more flexible in tactic usage (Grams & Rogers, 1990), and less moral and empathetic (Padney & Singh, 1987). Research suggests that employees possessing a Machiavellian personality have both advantages and disadvantages for them in the workplace. With respect to deception, high Machs are much less likely to be caught. Geis and Moon (1981) discovered that high Machs were more convincing liars than low Machs. High Machs were harder to judge and were believed to be telling the truth more when lying than low Machs. The flexibility of the high Mach is another advantageous characteristic. For example, high Machs with an external locus of control have been suggested to be better managers (Gable & Dangello, 1994). The fact that high Machs use deception to get what they desire is problematic. From a supervisor’s organizational standpoint, the high Mach may appear less appealing than the low Mach. As stated before, the high Mach will be less altruistic, empathetic, and more likely to cheat. If the high Mach is perceived as this by superiors, he/she may suffer consequences. Consistent with attribution theory (Heider, 1958), high Machs tend to externalize their failures. Deception and manipulation are merely attempts to exert control over adverse conditions, and meta-analytic methodologies have suggested that high Machs have an external locus of control (Mudrack, 1990). This information denotes that having the Machiavellianism trait does not necessarily entail successful encounters concerning deception, manipulation, or betrayal. Some high Machs are good at manipulating, some are not, but having the trait means that the manipulation does occur. Whether or not deception attempts are successful is another thing. Moreover, varying results make it difficult to really understand the Machiavellian worker. For example, some research has found high Machs to be detached from their job, while other research has found high Machs to be quite involved in their job due to their obsessive compulsive nature (Mudrack, 1989). Also, the differentiation between high and low Machs can be attributed to collective variables. Self-presentation, gender orientation, receptivity to expressive behavior, gender, and self-monitoring have been discovered to differentiate between high and low Machs (Madonna, Wesley, & Anderson, 1989). Considering the discrepancies in organizational communication research regarding Machiavellian employees, several communication researchers have recently resurrected this program of research. For instance, Walter, Anderson, and Martin (2005) discovered that Machiavellian subordinates are motivated to communicate for control, escape, and relaxation. Furthermore, Teven, McCroskey, and Richmond (2006) revealed that Machiavellian supervisors are perceived as less credible by subordinates. Alan K. Goodboy & James C. McCroskey 291 Based on the extant research, it seems plausible that high Machs will lack an upward mobile orientation and have more of an ambivalent (if not indifferent) orientation for several reasons. First, research does not suggest that high Machs outperform low Machs in real-world organizational outcomes, which does not coincide with the upward mobile orientation. Sales performance (Turnbull, 1976), marketing job performance (Hunt & Chonko, 1984), and professor tenure (Hollan, 1975) are not related to the Machiavellianism trait. Upward mobiles however, are likely to perform better in the workplace considering their desire for promotion. Second, research has suggested that high Machs are not as satisfied with their jobs (Gable & Topol, 1987; Hollon, 1983; Hunt & Chonko, 1984; Walter et al., 2005). Upward mobiles however, live to work and tend to identify with organizations. Instead, workers possessing either ambivalent or indifferent orientations are more prone to job dissatisfaction. Third, communication behaviors exhibited by high Machs are not representative of upward mobility preferences. For example, Teven and Winters (2007) revealed that Machiavellian employees exhibit less caring and responsiveness, which is unrepresentative of the upward mobile employee. On the contrary, an upward mobile employee would be likely to communicate caring and should be quite responsive. Fourth, upward mobility has been correlated negatively with Machiavellianism (Heisler & Gemmill, 1977). Based on the four aforementioned research findings, we predicted that: H1: Employees higher in Machiavellianism will have higher ambivalent and indifferent organizational orientations but will have lower upward mobility orientations. Nonverbal Immediacy Nonverbal immediacy refers to “the communicative behaviors used to enhance closeness and reduce physical or psychological distance between indiv