Chapter 4-8

Why are externals more dissatisfied? The answer is probably because they perceive themselves as having little control over those organizational outcomes that are important to them. Internals, facing the same situation, attribute organi- zational outcomes to their own actions. If the situation is unattractive, they be- lieve that they have no one else to blame but themselves. Also, the dissatisfied in- ternal is more likely to quit a dissatisfying job. The impact of locus of control on absence is an interesting one. Internals be- lieve that health is substantially under their own control through proper habits, so they take more responsibility for their health and have better health habits. Consequently, their incidences of sickness and, hence, of absenteeism are lower.¹⁹ We shouldn't expect any clear relationship between locus of control and turnover because there are opposing forces at work. "On the one hand, internals tend to take action and thus might be expected to quit jobs more readily. On the other hand, they tend to be more successful on the job and more satisfied, factors associated with less individual turnover."²⁰ The overall evidence indicates that internals generally perform better on their jobs, but that conclusion should be moderated to reflect 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.
Externals, however, are more compliant and willing to follow directions. Therefore, internals do well on sophisti- cated tasks-which include most managerial and profes- sional jobs-that require complex information processing and learning. In addition, internals are more suited to jobs that require initiative and independence of action. Almost all successful salespeople, for instance, are inter- nals. Why? Because it's pretty difficult to succeed in sales if you don't believe you can effectively influence outcomes. In contrast, externals should do well on jobs that are well structured and routine and in which success depends heavily on complying with the direction of others.
Machiavellianism The personality characteristic of Machiavellianism (Mach) is named after Niccol Machiavelli, who wrote in the sixteenth century on how to gain and use power. An individual high in Machiavellianism is prag- matic, maintains emotional distance, and believes that ends can justify means. "If it works, use it" is consistent with a high-Mach perspective. A considerable amount of research has been directed toward relating high- and low-Mach personalities to certain behavioral outcomes.²¹ High Machs manip- ulate more, win more, are persuaded less, and persuade others more than do low Machs.²² Yet these high-Mach outcomes are moderated by situational factors. It has been found that high Machs flourish (1) when they interact face-to-face with others rather than indirectly; (2) when the situation has a minimum number of rules and regulations, thus allowing latitude for improvisation; and (3) when emo- tional involvements with details irrelevant to winning distract low Machs.²³ Should we conclude that high Machs make good employees? That answer de- pends on the type of job and whether you consider ethical implications in evaluat- ing performance. In jobs that require bargaining skills (such as labor negotiation) or that offer substantial rewards for winning (as in commissioned sales), high Machs will be productive. But if ends can't justify the means, if there are absolute standards of behavior, or if the three situational factors noted in the preceding paragraph are not in evidence, our ability to predict a high Mach's performance will be severely curtailed.	Machiavellianism Degree to which an individual is pragmatic, maintains emotional distance, and believes that ends can justify means.

Home