Machiavellianism and affective commitment as predictors of unethical pro-organization behavior: exploring the moderating role of moral disengagement

Abstract

Purpose A growing number of organizational scandals, including Apple slowing old devices to increase the sales of new ones, and research on unethical pro-organization behaviors (UPBs) have heightened the need to explore the phenomenon. Extending the current understanding, the study's major purpose is to investigate individual-level factors that may shape their willingness to engage in UPBs. It also inquires whether moral disengagement processes influence this association. Design/methodology/approach After testing the reliability and validity of the latent constructs and ensuring common method bias did not contaminate the data, the study used the PLS-SEM approach to analyze the primary data collected from 408 full-time Pakistani employees. Findings Results add to the current understanding by revealing that individual-level dark factor Machiavellianism (MACH) significantly influences employees' willingness to engage in UPBs. Accordingly, affective commitment is another individual-level factor that encourages employees to be a part of UPBs. Lastly, results unveil that employees with a higher moral disengagement are more prone to engage in UPBs. Research limitations/implications The study measured employees' willingness or intentions to engage in UPBs, not their actual involvement. Practical implications Results clarify to the top management that individuals high on MACH, affective commitment and moral disengagement are more prone to be involved in UPBs. Originality/value This study is among the preliminary ones that assess the direct associations between MACH, affective commitment, and UPBs, especially in the Pakistani context. Moreover, exploring the moderating role of moral disengagement between the above associations is also an under-researched phenomenon.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.