J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:233–240
DOI 10.1007/s10869-008-9065-1
The Relationship Between Machiavellianism and Knowledge
Sharing Willingness
Chung C. Liu
Published online: 18 January 2008
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Knowledge sharing has become a legitimate
and important organizational activity. Over the last two
decades, firms have become creative in their efforts to
make knowledge sharing take place. Meanwhile, Machia-
vellian orientation has been regarded as one of the most
important variables in the study of management and
organizational behavior for the last three decades. How-
ever, the existing literature does not offer any measure of
relationships between Machiavellianism and knowledge
sharing willingness. Therefore, this research aims to
explore the relationship between Machiavellianism and
knowledge sharing willingness. With a total of 325 valid
questionnaires completed by employees, the paper presents
some conclusive and valuable suggestions for businesses
and scholars alike.
Keywords Machiavellianism

Knowledge sharing willingness
For over the last two decades, there has been a growing
recognition of the role of knowledge in effective organi-
zations. Particularly, post-industrial societies embody the
rise of service-based economies dependent on knowledge,
the place of knowledge, and knowledge workers (Armstead
and Meakins 2002). In relation to this, knowledge man-
agement refers to how organizations create, use, share, and
protect knowledge. Strategists describe knowledge as a
primary asset, an extension of the resource-based view of
the firm to one that is specifically knowledge based. The
C. C. Liu (&)
National Taipei University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
e-mail: gereliu@mail.ntpu.edu.tw
value of knowledge is determined by the way it is used in
the firm’s processes such as in the production of products
and services (Penrose 1995). Strategists have argued that
knowledge and how it is managed is a key source of
competitive advantage (Weiss 1998). In today’s business
environment, competitive advantage increasingly requires
the open sharing of knowledge by organizational members
(Chow et al. 2000). Indeed, knowledge sharing has become
a legitimate and important organizational activity, and
many companies have come up with their own creative
efforts to make knowledge sharing happen. For example,
they collect and categorize lessons learned, provide yellow
pages to help employees locate colleagues who might have
access to the knowledge needed, as well as conduct site
visits to other businesses. These practices allow teams and
individuals to successfully develop solutions to difficult
problems, thereby reducing the costly duplication of effort
while creating new and innovative solutions through col-
laboration (Dixon 2002). Knowledge sharing is more
valuable when competencies are complex, and the factors
driving a firm’s performance are not ambiguous. Under
these conditions, knowledge sharing can be used to
enhance the credibility of a firm by making performance
drivers more evident to certain stakeholders (Mcevily et al.
2002). In the knowledge sharing literature, the determi-
nants of knowledge sharing include the theory of reasoned
action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein
1980), the economic exchange theory (Bock and Kim
2002; Williamson 1985), the social cognitive theory (Sta-
jkovic and Luthans 1998; Bandura 1986), the social
exchange theory (Blau 1964; Bock et al. 2002), and the
game theoretical approach (Von Hippel 1994; Loebecke
et al. 1999). By these five perspectives, many factors
explain that even after an individual’s knowledge sharing
behavior has been identified, there is still something left
123
234
undiscovered just like in personality identification (Liu and
Chen 2005).
Personality psychologists have somehow made a con-
sensus to consider the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of
personality as an appropriate taxonomy of personality. Its
dimensions include extraversion, agreeableness, conscien-
tiousness, neuroticism/emotional stability, and openness to
experience. A considerable literature has demonstrated the
validity of the FFM in predicting work outcomes, and the
cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor structure
has been established (Burke and Witt 2004). The FFM
model helps managers select the right person for the right
job but there are still some unethical behaviors in the
workplace which have become a serious and costly prob-
lem for organizations and the society as a whole (Jones and
White 1983; Jones and Kavanagh 1996). When talking
about negative personality, ethical or unethical behavior,
Machiavellian orientation is always mentioned. Machia-
vellians generally regard workplace behavior to be of
dubious ethical nature. As such, Machiavellianism has
been a subject of widespread research since Christie and
Geis (1970) published their findings on the subject. As a
personality construct, it has been employed to classify
individuals in terms of their beliefs that manipulative
behavior (including untruthfulness) can be used to achieve
their goals. The source of this construct can be found in
Niccolo Machiavelli’s two prominent works entitled, The
Prince and Discourse of the First Ten Books of Titus Livius
(Gable and Dangello 1994). Durand and Nord (1976)
describe the personality of an ideal Machiavellian as being
cool, detached, logically oriented, and likely to disregard
the affective states of both himself and others. Jones (1990)
presented 10 workplace behaviors of dubious ethical nature
and concluded that the hierarchical position of respondents
influence the perceived acceptability of these behaviors.
Mudrack (1993) also examined 10 workplace behaviors of
dubious ethical nature and noted them to be consistently
linked with Machiavellianism principles. Meanwhile,
Nelson and Gilbertson (1991) stressed the importance of
both organizations and their members to make people
better understand Machiavellianism and its implications.
Hegarty and Sims (1978) identified Machiavellianism as
one of the personality variables, which is a significant
covariate in graduate business students’ ethics studies.
Their findings indicate that individuals identified as
Machiavellian-oriented demonstrate less ethical behavior
than other study participants. On the other hand, some
researchers tend to believe that demographic variables
make a difference in terms of Machiavellian orientation
(Vitell et al. 1991; Ma 1985). For example, Ma (1985)
found that there is a positive relationship between age and a
law-abiding disposition. Pratt et al. (1983) argued that
older individuals tend to be better organized and more
123
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:233–240
consistent in their moral thinking. Domelsmith and Dietch
(1978) concluded that Machiavellianism is significantly
correlated with the unwillingness to self-disclose among
males. These imply that demographic variables should be
taken into consideration when studying Machiavellianism.
Gathering knowledge is easy, but sharing it is difficult.
Many firms are starting to realize that knowledge shared
is knowledge smartly deployed and leveraged (Dixon
2002). Achieving and maintaining a quality focus requires
constant attention to customer requirements, improving
processes, training, communication, and human resources.
The essence of all these also lies in sharing knowledge
(Gross 2001). Due to information technology improve-
ment and knowledge transmission, knowledge sharing
gets more and more important. However, the key success
factor is still the human factor. People will hold back
their knowledge to keep their competitive competence.
However, if we know more about the relationship
between personality and knowledge sharing, we would
know how to handle questions of knowledge sharing. In
this study, we focus on the determinants (especially for
personality) of knowledge sharing of an individual. To
sum up, this research has two purposes: first is to inves-
tigate the relationship between Machiavellianism and
knowledge sharing willingness, and second is to deter-
mine the moderating effect of demographic variables on
the relationship mentioned above.
Hypotheses
Machiavellianism and Knowledge Sharing Willingness
Knowledge is a source of competitive advantage, and
cooperation which comes in the form of inter-organiza-
tional knowledge sharing, has the potential to increase
each partner’s knowledge base and hence his/her compet-
itiveness (Simon 1992; Drucker 1992; Lorange 1996;
Loebecke et al. 1999). Most of the research on Machia-
vellianism has focused on face-to-face or interpersonal
encounters, predicting that high Machs would be more
successful than Low Machs. A Machiavellian orientation
consists of two orthogonal sets of attributes: a cynical view
of human nature and a willingness to employ manipulative
strategies in social interactions (Christie and Geis l970;
Domelsmith et al. 1978; Robbins 2005). People who are
distrustful of others are more likely to behave in an
unethical manner (Rotter 1980). Negative attitudes and
personality variables such as Machiavellianism have been
shown to predict unethical behavior in employees (Zey-
Ferrell et al. 1979; Andersson and Bateman 1997). As
Hunt and Chonko (1984) suggested, the label ‘‘Machia-
vellian’’ is becoming a negative epithet, indicating an
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:233–240
amoral way of manipulating others to accomplish one’s
own objectives. In their studies, Christie and Geis (1970)
cautioned against this interpretation. More appropriately,
Machiavellian-oriented persons possess a cold detachment
that makes them less emotionally involved with others or
with saving face in potentially embarrassing situations.
Vleeming (1979) classified four categories of Machiavel-
lianism including manipulation, persuasiveness,
persuasibility, and miscellaneous. Gable and Topol (1988)
and Fraedrich et al. (1989) reported that there are three
components including manipulation, exploitation, and
deviousness in Machiavellianism. Manipulation is aggres-
siveness for the achievement of personal and
organizational objectives through accumulation of power.
Exploitation refers to subscribing to some forms of utili-
tarianism, which is teleological in nature, and then ethical
decisions are determined by whether or not the amount of
good outweighs the bad. The term deviousness can be used
to mean that an individual uses a roundabout way of
accomplishing a task or that a person does not express his/
her intention straightforwardly (Fraedrich et al. 1989;
Calhoon 1969). On the other hand, a person can possess
different types of knowledge, such as tacit and explicit
knowledge. Explicit knowledge is articulated, coded, and
transferred (Nonaka 1994), while tacit knowledge is far
more difficult to articulate and is derived from individual
experience (Matusik and Hill 1998). Although both types
of knowledge are valuable to the organization, tacit
knowledge is more difficult to capture since it resides
within the individual. Nonaka (1994) identified a second
taxonomy of knowledge: individual and organizational
knowledge. Organizational knowledge is developed and
created within groups and individuals (Alavi and Leidner
2001), which leads to the gap between the knowledge of
individuals and that of the organization (Ford and Chan
2003). In this study, knowledge sharing willingness is
divided into two parts: intrinsic and extrinsic. The former
refers to sharing willingness coming from inner or indi-
vidual experience, while the latter is sharing willingness
through an external or pressured situation. Hegarty and
Sims (1978) identified Machiavellianism as one of the
personality variables which play a significant covariate in
graduate business students’ ethics studies. Their findings
indicate that individuals identified as Machiavellian ori-
ented demonstrate less knowledge sharing willingness than
other study participants. Domelsmith et al. (1978) con-
cluded that Machiavellianism is significantly correlated
with the unwillingness to self-disclose. According to the
literature review done earlier, the logic suggests the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Machiavellianism is negatively correlated
with knowledge sharing willingness.
235
Demographic Variables
Demographic characteristics and other dimensions might
explain some of the variables between Machiavellianism
and knowledge sharing willingness. Researchers who fre-
quently use Machiavellianism scales to their study’s
respondents, with or without gender difference in Mach
scores, discover that the results are clearly mixed.
Domelsmith et al. (1978) claimed that Machiavellianism is
significantly correlated with the unwillingness to self-dis-
close among males. However, among females,
Machiavellianism is significantly correlated with the will-
ingness to disclose. The two correlations are therefore
significantly different. According to current stereotypes,
men are oriented toward individual achievement, while the
goals of women are to be sociable, popular, nurturing, and
skilled at getting along with others. Women who exhibit
these goals and are willing to employ manipulative tactics
can use self-disclosure effectively, while it will be an
ineffective strategy for men. Mudrack (1989) investigated
that there are age-related differences in Machiavellianism
among adults, but no evidence of nonlinearity in the age-
Machiavellianism relationship could be detected. Some
researchers tend to indicate that age makes a difference in
terms of ethical beliefs, with older individuals appearing to
be more ethical than younger ones (Vitell et al. 1991). Ma
(1985) concluded that there is a positive relationship
between one’s age and law-abiding disposition. Pratt et al.
(1983) considered that older individuals tend to be better
organized and more consistent in their moral thinking.
They tend to be more philosophically reflective than their
younger counterparts. Turner and Martinez (1977) stated
that Machiavellianism is positively related to success for
males with high educational attainment. Hunt and Chonko
(1984) concluded that marital status is related with
Machiavellianism. As mentioned above, we should also
note the context in which the problem occurs. Gender, age,
education, and marital status are included in the organi-
zation as control variables in this study analysis. In the
past, there have been studies on the moderating effect of
‘‘situation’’ on the relationships between Machiavellianism
and other variables. These variables include ‘‘age,’’ ‘‘gen-
der,’’ ‘‘education,’’ and ‘‘marital status.’’ These variables
should moderate the relationship between Machiavellian-
ism and knowledge sharing willingness, thus leading to the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Demographic variables moderate the
relationship between Machiavellianism and knowledge
sharing willingness.
Hypothesis 2A: The gender variable moderates the
relationship between Machiavellianism and knowledge
sharing willingness.
123
236
Hypothesis 2B: The marital status variable moderates
the relationship between Machiavellianism and knowledge
sharing willingness.
Hypothesis 2C: The education variable moderates the
relationship between Machiavellianism and knowledge
sharing willingness.
Hypothesis 2D: The age variable moderates the rela-
tionship between Machiavellianism and knowledge sharing
willingness.
Method
Sample and Data Collection
With the agreement of all the participants obtained, the rate
of useful responses was 100%. Since the participant pop-
ulation comprised of full-time employees who are taking
evening classes in four universities in northern Taiwan, the
questionnaire was easily administered. The subjects com-
prised of 325 individuals, 135 male and 190 female. Fifty-
one percent were women, and 49% were men. All subjects
were almost university and master’s students attending
evening classes at four universities in northern Taiwan’s
metropolitan area. All were employed full time, and each
had a work experience of more than two years.
Measures
Over the past 30 years, a considerable body of literature
has reported investigations of the Machiavellianism con-
struct. The most widely used measure of Machiavellianism
has been the MACH IV scale developed by Christie and
Geis (1970). The Mach IV scale has been widely used to
measure the Machiavellian level of personality in indi-
viduals who use guile and deceit to achieve their
objectives. Truthfulness and one’s ethics can be sacrificed
to attain goals. This scale has been used in a wide range of
settings (Gable et al. 1994; Gable and Topol 1987, 1988,
1989, 1991; Hunt et al. 1984; Okanes and Murray 1980). It
contains 20 items with 10 items worded in a Machiavellian
direction and 10 items worded in the opposite direction.
However, the statement ‘‘Barum was very wrong when he
said there’s a sucker born every minute’’ is not appropriate
for this study due to its cultural load. In particular, we do
not have any background about ‘‘Barum’’ so we deleted
this statement. The respondents were asked to indicate their
degree of agreement or disagreement with the 19 state-
ments. The total score at the theoretically neutral point was
76 (4 9 19 items). The minimum score was 19 (1 9 19
123
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:233–240
items), and the maximum score was 133 (7 9 19 items). At
the beginning of the questionnaire, there is an introduction
including the proposed study objectives and instructions.
As reported by Gable et al. (1988) and Fraedrich et al.
(1989), there are three dimensions such as manipulation,
exploitation, and deviousness. A number of investigators
have attempted to determine what the MACH IV measures.
One group suggested that Machiavellianism is a single
construct (Christie and Geis 1970; Hwang and Marsella
1977), while others have presented evidence that suggests
Machiavellianism is a multidimensional construct (Fraed-
rich et al. 1989; Panitz 1989; Hunter et al. 1982; Calhoon
1969). If the construct is measurable and is a single com-
ponent, the scale items should result in a single factor upon
factor analysis. If the construct is measurable and is mul-
tidimensional, then the scale items should indicate two or
more dimensions upon factor analysis. Drory and Gluski-
nos (1980) note that there are no performances differences
between high Machiavellian orientation and low Machia-
vellian orientation. In particular, the factor analysis
reported here yielded three components. Notably, Gable
et al. (1988) and Fraedrich et al. (1989) likewise reported
three components. Hence, I adopted the single construct
perspective.
The knowledge sharing willingness scale was developed
by Nonaka (1994), Matusik et al. (1998), Davenport and
Prusak (2000), and Alavi et al. (2001). I used the 12-item
questionnaire of knowledge sharing willingness to measure
overall general knowledge sharing willingness. The
knowledge sharing willingness scale is a self-administered
instrument with higher scores and higher knowledge
sharing willingness. A seven-point Likert-type scale format
is used for all items. A pre-test of these instruments is
employed to assess the instructions, wording, and questions
of the survey questionnaire. As Chinese is the prevalent
language in Taiwan, the revised English version was
translated into Chinese to increase the response rate. Fol-
lowing the back-translation method by Sinaiko and Brislin
(1973), two translators who were fluent in both English and
Chinese were invited to independently translate the English
questionnaire into Chinese. Once their task was completed,
two other translators back-translated the Chinese ques-
tionnaire into English to ensure accuracy. Afterwards, the
four translators met to resolve any disagreements on
interpretations. The finalized Chinese version was written
and compiled following the meeting. The total score of
knowledge sharing willingness scale at the theoretically
neutral point was 48 (4 9 12 items). The minimum score
was 12 (1 9 12 items), while the maximum score was 84
(7 9 12 items). Nonaka (1994), Davenport et al. (2000),
and Alavi et al. (2001) reported two components. Hence, in
this study, I adopted a single dimension.
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:233–240
Control Variables
In order to ensure that these hypotheses tests are appro-
priately conservative, we controlled several variables in the
regression analyses: gender, age, marital status, and edu-
cational level. Gender is coded 1 for ‘‘man’’ and 2 for
‘‘woman.’’ Education is coded 1 for ‘‘no college degree,’’ 2
for ‘‘junior college degree,’’ 3 for ‘‘senior college degree,’’
4 for ‘‘bachelor degree,’’ and 5 for ‘‘master degree.’’ Age is
coded 1 for ‘‘18-22 years,’’ 2 for ‘‘22-26 years,’’ and 3 for
‘‘above 26 years.’’ Lastly, marital status is coded 1 for
‘‘married’’ and 2 for ‘‘unmarried.’’
Reliability and Validity
To assess Machiavellian orientation, we averaged the rat-
ings on all items of Christie and Geis (1970) except that for
no.19. For this research, the measure of the Mach scale in
terms of Cronbach’s a was 0.68. On the other hand, to
assess knowledge sharing willingness, we averaged the
ratings on all item references by Nonaka (1994), Davenport
et al. (2000), and Alavi et al. (2001) measure. As for the
second scale, Knowledge Sharing Willingness scale with a
Cronbach’s a was 0.78. However, content validity refers to
the representativeness and comprehensiveness of the items
used to create the scale. It is assessed by examining the
process through which the scale items are generated
(Straub 1989; Woobock and Kim 2002). In this research,
the definitions of Machiavellianism and knowledge sharing
willingness were initially proposed based on reviews of
Gable et al. (1991, 1994), Nonaka (1994), Davenport et al.
(2000), and Alavi et al. (2001). Previous studies on
Machiavellianism and other disciplines were comprehen-
sively reviewed to develop the measurement items. On the
other hand, construct validity examines the extent to which
a scale measures a theoretical variable of interest. There are
many different aspects of construct validity that have been
proposed in the psychometric literature (Bagozzi et al.
Table 1 Descriptive statistic, means, standard deviations, and correlations matrix
Mean SD 1 2
1. Gender exploitation 1.59 0.50 –
2. Age 1.83 1.01 -.08
3. Martial 1.17 0.43 -.00
4. Education 4.15 0.58 -.12*
5. Mach 77.78 11.59 -.10
6. KSW 69.36 9.02 -.08
Note: N = 325. Mach = Machiavellianism. KSW = Knowledge Sharing Willingness
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
237
1991; Straub 1989). To test construct validity, item anal-
ysis and factor analysis with varimax rotation were
performed. For convergent validity, the item-to-total cor-
relation (that is, the correlation of each item to the sum of
the remaining items) is appropriate.
Results
The results of the study are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Specifically, means, standard deviations, and intercorrela-
tions of the study variables are shown in Table 1. There are
significantly negative correlations of Machiavellian orien-
tation with knowledge sharing willingness. In demographic
variables, Machiavellianism is negatively correlated with
demographic variables but not significant. Knowledge
sharing willingness is only correlated with age significantly.
Taken together, Machiavellian oriented is negative corre-
lated with knowledge sharing willingness significantly.
In Table 2, tests for the differences among the three
models are not all significant, demonstrating that adding
the hypothesized variables from one model to the next
significantly improves the model fit. It also shows the
results of the hierarchy regression analysis to find the direct
and moderating effects. The dependent variable is knowl-
edge sharing willingness. The results of the analysis
generally support hypothesis 1 but not support hypothesis
2, from which we based the interpretation of the results. As
mentioned above, Tables 1 and 2 report the standardized
coefficient associated with each independent variable and
moderating effect on demographic variables. The Machi-
avellian orientation has significantly negative relationships
with knowledge sharing willingness in the model. For the
moderating hypotheses, the last step for each regression
indicates that the incremental variance accounted for the
interaction terms. There are no obvious moderating effects
in the model including gender, age, marital status, and
education. These results only support Hypothesis 1 (see
Tables 1 and 2).
3 4 5 6
–
.47** –
-.20** -.11* –
.01 -.04 -.00 –
.14* .06 .01 -.21*** –
123
238 J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:233–240

Table 2 Results of hierarchical regression analysis by knowledge cooperation, i.e., knowledge sharing willingness, be bene-
sharing willingness ficial to individuals?’’ Furthermore, the findings of this
Independent variable Knowledge sharing willingness study could also provide some references for companies in
choosing the right persons for teamwork in a knowledge
b F R2 DR2
sharing environment.
Gender -.07 2.07 .02
Age .14*
Marital -.01 Limitations and Suggestions
Education .03
Mach -.22*** 5.11*** .07 .05*** This study shows an active attempt to investigate a less-
Mach*Gender -.14 3.70*** .09 .02 studied topic. One is the relationship between Machia-
Mach*Age -.70 vellianism orientation and knowledge sharing willingness,
Mach*MAR -.25 and the other is the moderating effect of employees’
Mach*EDU .39 demographic variables. Although no single study can
Note: Dependent variable: knowledge sharing willingness; MAR: provide conclusive evidences on all issues examined
marital status; EDU: education here, the results obtained are encouraging and suggest
* p \ .05; *** p \ .001 some interesting topics or work-related variables such as
Big Five Personality, Locus of Control, Myers-Briggs
Type Indicators (MBTI), or situation variables for future
Discussion research. Particularly, from the viewpoint of some cross-
cultural studies, the current research demonstrates that
Conclusion under the influence of the traditional Chinese culture,
students in Taiwan behave differently. This is worthy of
The research examines the relationship between Machia- further study involving a comparison of different foreign
vellian orientation and knowledge sharing willingness, and samples. Practically, this study suggests that managers
it is found that there are significant negative correlations may predict employees’ knowledge sharing willingness
between the two. The correlation coefficients are all sig- based on the employees’ Machiavellian orientation.
nificantly negative. The moderating effect of demographic Knowledge sharing assists in organizational learning; in
variables is not supported. In conclusion, this study rep- its absence, the gap between individual and organiza-
resents an active attempt to investigate a less-studied topic tional knowledge may become broader. In addition,
in a less-studied society (i.e., Taiwan)—the relationships knowledge sharing is one of the most challenging pro-
between Machiavellian orientation and knowledge sharing cesses for a knowledge enterprise due to employees’
willingness, and the moderating effect of employee possible reluctance to share what they know (Ford et al.
demography on the relationship between them. Although 2003). On the other hand, this research was limited to
no single study can provide obvious evidence on research two major cities, namely, Taipei and Keelung, which are
purposes examined here, the results obtained are valuable among the most industrialized and the most exposed
and suggest some interesting topics for future research. It cities to Western influence. If the samples are drawn
also shows that this topic is definitely worth studying. Most from a wider range of locations with a wider range of
notably, it also suggests that managers may predict educational backgrounds and are inclusive of more
employees’ knowledge sharing willingness based on their experienced workers, it is possible that the effects could
employees’ Machiavellian orientation. In relation to this, be more pronounced.
the results also warrant a more serious look at the employee Furthermore, these findings may provide further
selection process. The findings should thus guide firms in research directions for future researchers. A more in-depth
choosing the right persons when they improve the job study of Machiavellianism and knowledge sharing will-
design related with knowledge sharing in their respective ingness that involves a much larger sample, more
organizations. According to the literature review, some questionable practices, and other demographic variables
conclusions of this study match those of other research, (e.g., nationality) may be undertaken in the future for
including studies of Hegarty et al. (1978), Vitell et al. Taiwan and other countries as well. Such a venture would
(1991), and Ma (1985). Loebecke et al. (1999) also con- not only provide a better understanding of Machiavellian-
sidered knowledge sharing willingness as a part of the ism orientation and knowledge sharing willingness, but
ultimate goal of firms as they increase their profits. How- could also act as a precursor for conducting a conceptual
ever, the question that remains is, ‘‘To what extent can testing of the model.

123
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:233–240
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and
predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-
Hall.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management
and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations
and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (1997). Cynicism in the
workplace: Some causes and effects. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 18, 449–469.
Armstead, C., & Meakins, M. (2002). A framework for practicing
knowledge management. Long Range Planning, 35, 49–71.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct
validity in organizational research. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36, 421–458.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action.
Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards:
An exploratory study of attitude about knowledge sharing.
Information Researches Management Journal, 15, 14–21.
Burke, L. A., & Witt, L. A. (2004). Personality and high-maintenance
employee behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(3),
349–363.
Calhoon, R. P. (1969). Niccolo Machiavelli and the twentieth century
administrators. Academy of Management Journal, 12, 205–212.
Chow, C. W., Deng, F. J., & Ho, J. L. (2000). The openness of
knowledge sharing within organizations: A comparative study of
the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Journal of
Management Accounting Research, 12, 65–95.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New
York: Academic Press.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Work knowledge: How
organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Dixon, N. (2002). The neglected receiver of knowledge sharing. Ivey
Business Journal, 66(4), 35–40.
Domelsmith, D. E., & Dietch, J. T. (1978). Sex differences in the
relationship between Machiavellianism and self-disclosure.
Psychological Reports, 42, 715–721.
Drory, A., & Gluskinos, U. M. (1980). Machiavellianism and
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 81–86.
Drucker, P. (1992). The new society of the organizations. Harvard
Business Review, 70(5), 95–104.
Durand, D. E., & Nord, W. R. (1976). Perceived leader behavior as a
function of personality characteristics of supervisors and subor-
dinates. Academy of Management Journal, 19(3), 427–438.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention, and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Philippines:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Ford, D. P., & Chan, Y. E. (2003). Knowledge sharing in a multi-
cultural setting: A case study. Knowledge Management Research
and Practice, 1, 11–27.
Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, O. C., & Pride, W. (1989). An empirical
examination of three Machiavellian concepts: Advertisers vs. the
general public. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 687–694.
Gable, M., & Topol, M. (1987). Job satisfaction and Machiavellian
orientation among department store executives. Psychological
Reports, 60, 211–216.
Gable, M., & Topol, M. (1988). Machiavellianism and the department
store executive. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 68–84.
Gable, M., & Topol, M. (1989). Machiavellianism and job satisfaction
of retailing executive in a specialty store chain. Psychological
Reports, 64, 107–112.
239
Gable, M., & Topol, M. (1991). Machiavellian managers: Do they
perform better? Journal of Business and Psychology, 5(3),
355–365.
Gable, M., & Dangello, F. (1994). Job involvement, Machiavellian-
ism, and job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology,
9(2), 159–170.
Gross, A. E. (2001). Knowledge sharing—The crux of quality, quality
Congress. In ASQ’s Annual Quality Congress Proceedings,
Milwaukee (pp. 452–456).
Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of
unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 63(4), 451–457.
Hunt, S., & Chonko, L. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism.
Journal of Marketing, 48, 30–42.
Hunter, J. E., Gerbig, D. W., & Boster, F. J. (1982). Machiavellian
beliefs and personality: Construct invalidity of the Machiavel-
lianism dimension. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 1293–1305.
Hwang, K. K., & Marsella, A. J. (1977). The meaning and
measurement of Machiavellianism in Chinese and American
college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 165–173.
Jones, W. A. Jr. (1990). Student views of ethical issues: A situational
analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 201–205.
Jones, G. E., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1996). An experimental examination
of the effects of individual and situational factors on unethical
behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Business
Ethics, 15, 511–523.
Jones, R., & White, C. S. (1983). Relationships between Machiavel-
lianism, task orientation, and team effectiveness. Psychological
Reports, 53, 859–866.
Liu, C. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2005). Determinants of knowledge sharing
of e-learners. International Journal of Innovation and Learning,
2(4), 434–445.
Loebecke, C., Fenema, P. C. V., & Powell, P. (1999). Co-Opetition
and knowledge transfer. The Data Base for Advances in
Information Systems, 30(2), 14–25.
Lorange, P. (1996). Strategy at the leading edge-interactive strategy-
alliances and partnership. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 581–584.
Ma, H. K. (1985). Cross-cultural study of the development of law-
abiding orientation. Psychological Reports, 57, 967–975.
Matusik, S., & Hill, C. (1998). The utilization of contingent work,
knowledge creation, and competitive advantage. Academy of
Management Review, 23(4), 680–697.
Mcevily, S. K., Das, S., & Mccabe, K. (2002). Avoiding competence
substitution through knowledge sharing. Journal of Management
Review, 25(2), 294–311.
Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Age-related differences in Machiavellianism
in an adult sample. Psychological Reports, 64, 1047–1050.
Mudrack, P. E. (1993). An investigation into the acceptability of
workplace behaviors of a dubious ethical nature. Journal of
Business Ethics, 12, 517–524.
Nelson, G., & Gilbertson, D. (1991). Machiavellianism revisited.
Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 633–639.
Nonaka, A. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge
creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
Okanes, M. M., & Murray, L. W. (1980). Achievement among men
and women managers. Psychological Reports, 46, 783–788.
Panitz, E. (1989). Psychometric investigation of the Mach IV scale
measuring Machiavellianism. Psychological Reports, 64,
963–968.
Penrose, E. (1995). The theory and growth of the firm (3rd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pratt, M., Golding, G., & Hunter, W. (1983). Aging as ripening:
Character and consistency of moral judgment in young, mature,
and older adults. Human Development, 26, 277–288.
123
240
Robbins, S. D. (2005). Organizational behavior (11th ed.). NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibil-
ity, American Psychologist, 35, 1–7.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Social cognitive theory and
self-efficacy: Going beyond traditional motivational and behav-
ioral approaches. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 62–74.
Sinaiko, H. W., & Brislin, R. W. (1973). Evaluating language
translations: Experiments on the three assessment methods.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 328–334.
Simon, H. A. (1992). Models of bounded rationality: Behavioral
economics and business organization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS
Quarterly, 13(2), 147–170.
Turner, C. F., & Martinez, D. C. (1977). Socio-economic achievement
and the Machiavellian personality. Sociometry, 40(4), 325–336.
Vitell, S. J., Lumpkin, J. R., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (1991). Consumer
ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of elderly
consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 365–375.
123
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:233–240
Vleeming, R. G. (1979). Machiavellianism: A preliminary review.
Psychological Reports, 44, 295–310.
Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem
solving: Implication for innovation. Management Science, 40(4),
429–439.
Weiss, L. (1998). Collection and connection: Rationalized and
embedded knowledge in knowledge-intensive organizations.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institution of capitalism:
Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.
Woobock, G., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards:
An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing.
Informational Resource Management Journal, 15(2), 14–21.
Zey-Ferrell, M., Weaver, K. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1979). Predicting
unethical behavior among marketing practitioners. Human
Relations, 3, 557–569.