Race effects on the employee assessing political leadership: a review of Christie and Geis' (1970) Mach IV measure of Machiavellianism.

Machiavellianism has commonly been defined as the need to develop and defend one's power and success (Machiavelli, 1513/1902). Scholars have adopted the perspective of Machiavelli to examine political dynamics in organizations (Andersson, 2000; Harrell-Cook, 1999: Harrison, 1998; Hochwarter, 2000: Shankar, 1994). The Mach IV (Christie & Gels, 1970) has been the primary measure of Machiavellianism as a distinct personality construct. The purpose of this paper is to review the use of the Math IV in organizational behavior research. Given the inadequacies of the current version of the Mach IV, this paper suggests a revised measure of Machiavellian personality be developed and used in conjunction with other measures of political behavior and skills.

Introduction

Dating back 500 years to the days of Niccolo Machiavelli, leadership behaviors have been widely discussed. Machiavelli's perspectives are well known, most notably such generalizations as "the ends justify the means" and the belief that unethical behavior is acceptable, even necessary, if it helps attain goals or protect political position. Historically, philosophers have disagreed on Machiavelli's intentions (Berlin, 1955), but the most popular meaning applied to Machiavelli's writing derives from Elizabethan thought.

Modern scholars have adopted this perspective of Machiavelli to examine and understand political dynamics in organizations (Andersson & Bateman, 2000; Cheng, 1983: Harrell-Cook et al., 1999: Harrison et al., 1998; Hochwater et al., 2000; Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991; Shankar et al., 1994: Vecchio & Sussmann, 1991). This paper addresses the validity and reliability of the most commonly used measure of Machiavellianism, the Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970).

One key factor often neglected in discussion of Machiavellian beliefs is Machiavelli's conviction that leadership is a pursuit that serves the needs of the "common good" (Ledeen, 1999). Contemporary political scholar Michael Ledeen clarifies the intentions of Machiavelli in his book Machiavelli on Modern Leadership (1999), and enhances our understanding of Machiavelli when he states:

Even after half a millennium,

Machiavelli's advice to leaders is as

contemporary as tomorrow. He goes

to the essence every time. He doesn't

allow us the comfort of easy

generalizations or soothing moralisms.

He wants leaders to play for the

highest stakes of all--the advancement

of the human enterprise and the

defense of the common good--and it

infuriates him to see leaders of

corporations, religions, armies and

nations ignoring the basic rules of

power (p. 185).

Origins of the Machiavellian Construct

The contemporary understanding of Machiavellianism begins to make sense when one examines the origins of the Mach IV, based on Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513/1902). This book was written after Machiavelli had been stripped of his political power and essentially shunned by the political leaders of his time. Machiavelli had been an effective statesman for the Republic of Florence, participating in high-level decisions, negotiating agreements, and commanding battles. The Prince represents just one work written by Machiavelli--a work that does not reflect the entirety of his political philosophy, intellect, or intentions. It was The Prince that gave ultimate form to the widely used Mach IV.

Instrument Development

Richard Christie developed the 20-item Mach IV in 1970. It has not been revised since that time and is intended to assess adults ages 18-65 years. The Mach IV was developed to measure political personality orientation of leaders in organizations. Political personality, as defined by Christie and Geis (1970), is a disposition in which formal and informal power is used to control and/or manipulate others.

Richard Christie developed the Mach IV while a fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences. He and his colleagues became interested in those who occupied formal leadership positions and the authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). They came to realize that many in formal leadership positions were ineffective in political tactics and inflexible in their behaviors. These leaders' extreme positions did not allow them to make compromises necessary for political success.

Through in-depth literature reviews, Christie and his colleagues discovered that much of the research done on those wielding power over others was psychological in nature. In fact, much of the research focused on the psychopathology of such leaders. Because these leaders were in the limelight, it was a temptation to analyze them for psychological narcissism. Christie found fault in this line of research because, although these leaders may have led public lives that lent themselves to psychological analysis, he felt that those who exerted influence over others were more prone to psychopathology than those who did not.

Christie and his colleagues developed a psychological construct, based on their readings, which defined the political leader. Four general characteristics emerged from their research:

1. A relative lack of affect in interpersonal relationships (lack of empathy for others)

2. A lack of concern with conventional morality (utilitarian rather than moral view)

3. A lack of gross psychopathology (instrumentalist rather than rational view of others)

4. Low ideological commitment (focus on task completion rather than long-range ideological goals).

After the personality characteristics were defined, Christie and his colleagues set out to qualitatively discover if individuals with these characteristics actually existed. Using the model outlined above, they interviewed peers about the people who were responsible for their training. The qualitative interviews revealed findings consistent with the political behavior construct.

In order to further develop the political personality construct, Christie et al. began researching ancient and contemporary political writings. They examined Eysenck's The of Politics (1954), the biblical stories of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, The Book of Lord Shang (Kung-san Yang, circa 300 B.C.; Duyvendak, 1928), Arthasastra (Kautilya, circa 300 B.C.; Shamasastry, 1909), and finally, The Prince. Two themes emerged over and over again: first, human beings are basically weak and fallible; and, second, if people are so weak, a rational man should take advantage of the situation to maximize his own gains. Ultimately, Christie chose Machiavelli's The Prince as the core construct of political personality.

Initial Reliability Evidence

In order to assess the reliability of the Mach IV, the measure was administered to nine samples. The mean split reliability was .79. At the time of test development, Christie et al. did not have access to the technology to factor analyze the 71 original items for a sample of 1196 respondents. However, the test designers did examine part-whole correlations between individual items and the subscales to which they had been assigned. They were trying to determine whether individual item correlations were higher between the subscale and the overall scale. They did not find significant item/subscale correlations and decided that, given the high initial reliability, further factor analysis was not necessary.

Mach IV Reliability

Currently in leadership research, the type of reliability reported when using the Mach IV is generally the internal consistency, or coefficient alpha, of the measure. A wide range of internal consistency coefficients (.59-.88) has been reported (Barbuto and Moss, 2002). Factors that limit the reliability of the Mach IV are revealed when examined qualitatively. Sample items such as "Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so" and "Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property" may be difficult to answer honestly. Respondents typically attempt to answer in a socially desirable manner. Christie attempted to explain his underlying principle for the strong wording of the Mach IV. His rationale was that the true Machiavellian would be willing to answer questions honestly and not worry about socially desirable responses. Christie developed the Mach V, a forced-choice format, in order to accommodate for social desirability. A critique of the Mach V is beyond the scope of this paper, but, in general, the reliability of the Mach V has been found to be tenuous (King & Miles, 1995).

Mach IV Validity

In order to establish validity of the Mach IV, Christie et al. examined convergent and discriminate validity with several established personality measures. Other measures they compared with the Mach IV included intelligence tests (Medical College Admissions, Intelligence aptitude scores), measures of authoritarianism, measures of political preference, measures of racial attitudes, measures of philosophies of human nature, measures of personality, measures of motivation, measures of anxiety, measures of psychopathology, and finally, measures of general cantankerousness. A wide variety of student samples were used (naval school, college undergraduates, medical students). Christie found no significant correlations between the measures listed above and the Mach IV, giving him evidence of the discrimination ability and construct differentiation of the measure.