Q.

6 Write short notes on

• Locus of control
• Machiavellianism
Ans. Locus of Control:

A person’s perception of the source of his/ her fate is termed as Locus of

Control. Locus of control was formulated within the frame work of Rotter’s
{1954} Social Learning Theory of Personality. Rotter {1975} pointed out
that the internality and externality are the two ends of a continuum, not an
either/or topology.

External Locus of Control Internal Locus of Control

Individual believes that his/her Individual believes that his/her
behaviour is guided by fate, luck, or behaviour is guided by his/her
other external circumstances personal decisions and efforts.

Internals tend to attribute outcomes of events to their own control.

Externals attribute outcome of events to external circumstances.

For example, college students with a strong internal locus of control may
believe that their grades were achieved through their own abilities and
efforts. Whereas, those with strong external locus of control may believe
that their grades are the result of good / bad luck, or to a professor who
designs bad tests or grades capriciously; hence they are less likely to expect
that their own efforts will result in success and are therefore less likely to
work hard for higher grades.

Individuals who rate high in externality are less satisfied with their jobs,
have higher absenteeism rates, are more alienated from work wetting and
are less involved on their jobs than are internals. Internals believe that
health is substantially under their own control, and hence, of absenteeism,
are lower.

Internals generally perform better on their jobs, but one needs to consider
differences in jobs. Internals search more actively for information before
making a decision, are more motivated to achieve, and make a greater
attempt to control their environment, and hence, internals do well on
sophisticated tasks, internals are more suited to jobs that require initiative
and independence of action and want autonomy and independence in their
jobs. Externals are more compliant and are willing to follow directions and be
led, and do well on the jobs that are well structured and routine and in which
success depends heavily on complying with the direction of others.

Machiavellianism:

Machiavellianism is the term that some social and personality

psychologists use to describe a person’s tendency to deceive and manipulate
others for personal gain. The concept is named after Renaissance diplomat
and writer Niccolo Machiavelli, who wrote II Principe [The prince].
Christie and Geis [1970] developed a test for measuring a person’s level of
Machiavellianism. This eventually became the MACH IV test, a 20 statement
personality survey that is now standard self assessment tool for
Machiavellianism.

Mach IV, the Machiavelli (Mach) scale measures an individual's willingness to

put self-interest and his or her preferences above the interests of the group,
and an individual's ability to influence and manipulate others for personal
gain (Jaffe et al, 1989). Individuals with a high score on the scale are
comfortable using various means to achieve their personal goals. A high
Mach has a cynical view of human nature, few scruples, and is willing to step
outside the bounds of formal authority (Rayburn and Rayburn, 1996). Grams
and Rogers (1990) found that people who were high in Machiavellianism
used indirect, non-rational tactics like deceit, but also appealed to emotions
to try to plant their ideas to influence their colleagues.
High Mach scorers manipulate more, win more, are persuaded and persuade
others more. High mach outcomes are moderated by situational factors and
flourish when they interact face to face with others rather than indirectly,
and when the situation has minimum number of rules and regulations, thus
allowing room for improvisation. High machs makes good employees in jobs
that require bargaining skills or that offer substantial rewards for winning.
Literature review
Several hundred studies have examined Machiavellianism, including several
that have researched the degree of Machiavellianism among current and
future business executives (Hegarty and Sims, 1978; Chonko, 1982;
Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1990). However, no previous studies have attempted
to examine the extent of Machiavellianism among Egyptian students.
Robinson and Shaver (1973) reviewed various studies on Machiavellianism.
The authors found different degrees of Machiavellianism between
generations, which indicate that people are becoming more manipulative and
impersonal. Also reviewed, field studies at medical schools reveal that
psychiatrists are most Machiavellian and surgeons are least Machiavellian.
The explanation offered is that psychiatrists' role involves manipulation per
se vs. the surgeon who has as little personal contact with patient as
possible.
Miesing and Preble (1985) compared the different business ideologies,
including Machiavellianism, and tested them with 487 MBA students. This
survey revealed that postgraduates and those with work experience were
less Machiavellian in approach, compared to undergraduates and those
without work experience. In addition, women compared to men, and those
with some religious convictions were found to be less Machiavellian in their
dealings.
Gemmill and Heisler (1972) investigated the relationship between
Machiavellian orientation and several job-related correlates among 150
managers in a large manufacturing firm in the US. The findings indicate that
Machiavellian orientation is positively associated with job strain and
perceived opportunity for formal control, and negatively associated with job
satisfaction. Machiavellian orientation was not significantly associated with
upward mobility.
Siegel (1973) examined the extent to which managers, MBA students, and
faculty members exhibit the Machiavellian, manipulative interpersonal
behavior and leadership using the Mach scale and theory X/Theory Y
leadership scale. The study found the following ranking of Machiavellian
orientation: managers (lowest), students, faculty (highest). They found
Machiavellianism relates negatively to participative leadership attitudes for
both students and managers.