DISSERTATION

The Two Sides of the Coin:
Towards an Exploration of the Dark and Bright Side of Organizational
Commitment
A cross cultural Study among British and Greek Employees
Candidate number: GVSJ5
Supervisors: Kat Palaiou and Prof Adrian Furnham
Word Count: 9.262
UCL MSc Industrial/Organizational and Business Psychology 2014/2015
University College London

2
Acknowledgments
First of all I would like to acknowledge my parents Thomas and Eustathia Avgerou, for
their financial and mental support, as well as the inspiration that offered to me throughout this
intensive year of studying. Also, I would like to express my gratitude to my sisters and my brother
for being so close to me and supporting me with their courage and patience, making me feel even
happier and more grateful to have them in my life. This work was also supported by Haris
Michalakakos and my close friend Olga Konstantinidou who reinforced me with their positive
thinking and their faith in me.
My sincere thanks also go to all these people who voluntarily participated in this study,
since without their valuable help this project could not have been accomplished.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Kat Palaiou and
Prof Adrian Furnham for their vital guidance and support. Their supervision and feedback
combined with their experience gave me the opportunity to successfully complete this research
and enrich my knowledge and academic skills.

3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………………2
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………..3
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Organizational Commitment, Dark Personality and CSE: Theory and Research…………….9
Defining Organizational Commitment-The Three Component Model………………......10
Dark Triad: The Dark Side of Organizational Commitment……………………………..11
Core Self Evaluations: The Bright Side of Organizational Commitment………………..14
Emotional Intelligence: A Trait in Question? ..............................................................….16
The Cultural Contexts of the Study………………………………………………………….17
What is culture? ................................................................................................................17
Individualistic and Collectivistic Societies…………………………………………...…18
Method…………………………………………………………………………………………...20
Participants…………………………………………………………………………………..20
Measurements………………………………………………………………………………..20
Organizational Commitment……………………………………………………………...20
Dark Side of Personality…………………………………………………………………..21
Core Self-Evaluations……………………………………………………………………..21
Emotional Intelligence…………………………………………………………………….22
Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………..22
Results………………………………………………………………………………………….....24
Reliability Scales…………………………………………………………………………….24

4
Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………………………24
Demographics…………………………………………………………………….……24
Differences in scores across the main scales and subscales between two groups..........25
Differences in fairness, religiousness and political perspectives between the two
groups……………………………………………………………………………………………..26
Correlations among study variables………………………………………………………......27
Overall Correlations between Computed Variables……………………………...…….27
Correlations between Subscales of Computed Variables………………………...…….29
Regression Analysis………………………………………………………………………….30
Moderation…………………………………………………………………………………...33
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………...35
Predicting Affective Organizational Commitment in British Employees…………………..37
Predicting Affective Organizational Commitment in Greek Employees…………………...38
Promotions: A cross cultural Indicator of Organizational Commitment…………………...40
The role of Emotional Intelligence………………………………………………………….40
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….41
Study Limitations………………………………………………………….………………..41
Implications and Future Directions……………………………….…………………….......43
References……………………………………………………………………………………….44
Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………………...58
Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………...60
Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………………...63

5
Abstract
Inconclusive evidence and limited research in the field of the relationships between Dark
Side of Personality, as well as Core Self Evaluations and Organizational Commitment renders it
mandatory for the scientist to shed more light on the above connections. This study aims to be one
of the first to explore the both sides of Organizational Commitment and also examine if the Trait
of Emotional Intelligence moderates the relationships arising in a cross cultural context. A total of
170 Greek employees and 203 British employees, working in different kinds of organizations
completed a questionnaire composed of self reported measures of Organizational Commitment,
Dark Triad, Core Self Evaluations and Emotional Intelligence. After analyzed the data and testing
the hypotheses, the study concludes that traits under the scale of Core Self Evaluations, like Locus
of Control and Self Efficacy are positive predictors of Organizational Commitment in UK, while
the Dark Trait of Machiavellianism has a positive predictable value of Organizational
Commitment across Greek employees. However, the Trait of Emotional Intelligence was found to
have no moderating effect regarding the links between Dark Side, as well as Core Self Evaluations
and Organizational Commitment on any of the both samples. The importance of the findings lies
in that such information can be put to use for the wider social and major or minor scale
organizational sector.
Keywords: Organizational Commitment, Dark Side of Personality, Core Self Evaluations,
Emotional Intelligence

6
Introduction
“Unless commitment is made, there are only promises and hopes; but no plans”
Drucker, P. (1980, p.113)
Already from the 1980s, the importance of employee’s commitment to their organization
was highlighted by management consultant Peter Drucker. More than thirty years later, with the
globalization of commerce, businesses and organizations, as well as their rapid development,
organizational commitment appears to be not just important, but vital, offering a true competitive
advantage to any organization that implements it effectively. When applying the term
commitment to a business context, the focus is on “a force that binds an individual to a target
(social or non-social) and to a course of action of relevance to that target” (Meyer, Becker & Van
Dick, 2007, p.666).
Organizational commitment has been one of the most popular research topics within the
modern workplace (Solinger, Olffen, Roe & Zedeck, Sheldon, 2008). Indeed, this is not
surprising, if we take into consideration the existing body of evidence, revealing a number of
benefits that seem to stem from strongly committed employees and which benefit their respective
work environments in a variety of ways. According to recent meta-analytic reviews employees
demonstrating a high level of commitment towards their organization are more likely to remain to
this organization on a more permanent basis (Meyer, J. P., et al., 2002) and show effective
performance (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran 2005; Riketta, 2002) rather than leave the
organization (Tett & Meyer, 1993). At a time of rising organizational globalization, when the
survival of companies depends more and more on the performance and dedication of committed
employees, it is a common belief that the understanding of the nature, the implications and the

7
components of organizational commitment is a core procedure and even more essential than ever
before.
Towards the achievement of this goal, the last decades much research has been conducted
on this field and mainly on the relation between organizational commitment and a number of job
related variables namely, job satisfaction (Currivan, 1999; Rayton, 2006), job stress (Leong,
Furnham & Cooper, 1996; Glazer & Kruse, 2008) and work values (Elizur & Koslowsky, 2001).
All this research supports that there is a positive correlation between organizational commitment
and all the above organizational phenomena, highlighting simultaneously that their combination
prevents employees’ turnover as well as the appearance of counterproductive work behavior. In
addition, an underlying relationship between commitment to an organization and personality traits
is revealed through extensive reference in literature and empirical findings under the spectrum
propounded in Big Five Model of Personality (Erdheim, Wang & Zickar, 2006; Choi & Colbert,
2015). Emphasis has been placed on the positive connection between the Big Five Traits and
organizational commitment, overlooking the fact that personality is neither one-sided, nor remains
unaffected, and in doing so left an important research gap.
An attempt to resolve the latter has been a shift of interest towards the analysis of the vices
of human nature with what is known as the Dark Side of Personality. This shift attempts to
investigate the correlation between the Dark Traits of Narcissism, Psychopathy and
Machiavellianism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) and organizational commitment. Research to date,
although limited, suggests that the dark side of humans’ personality adversely affects
organizational commitment, or in other words researchers extend that Narcissists, Psychopaths
and Machiavellians are in general less committed to their organizations, and are more likely to feel
dissatisfied or even leave the organization (Zettler, Friedrich & Hilbig, 2011; O'Boyle, Forsyth,

8
Banks, McDaniel & Kozlowski, 2012; Spain, Harms & LeBreton, 2014). However, the lack of
bibliography leaves room for exceptions and juxtapositions to been drawn.
In tandem with the Dark Side of Personality traits analysis, however, the amount of insight
and intrinsic awareness an individual exhibits has led to the coinage of the term Core Self
Evaluations, individuals’ personal view of themselves. The latter comprising the four traits of self-
esteem, emotional stability, self efficacy and locus of control, refers to individuals’ appraisal of
their self characteristics like competences, capabilities and self worth (Judge, Locke & Durham,
1997; Judge & Bono, 2001). A number of studies have focused so far on job satisfaction,
suggesting that employees with positive core self evaluations tend to treat their job as an ongoing
challenge and be more satisfied with it (Judge, Bono, Locke & Murphy, Kevin, 2000).
Comparatively fewer studies, though, and meta-analyses have examined the links between core
self evaluations and organizational commitment, highlighting the existence of a positive
relationship between them (Pierce, & Gardner, 2004; Ng, Twh, Sorensen & Eby, 2006), hence
raising the issue of further research be conducted towards that end.
The importance of organizational commitment and the rising demand for more devoted
employees has not only given impetus to investigations concerning unexplored areas of human
conduct but also to the need for clarity concerning how the entire spectrum of human emotion
intertwines as well as which cohesive variables govern such bonds. Emotional Intelligence is a
valued trait among the business world not least because of the positive correlations with
organizational commitment (Aghdasi, Kiamanesh & Ebrahim, 2011) and core self evaluations
(Montasem, Brown & Harris, 2013), while on the other hand its negative correlation with the dark
side of personality has also been explored (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). Although empirical
findings support the above paired connections, one question arises; does emotional intelligence

9
have any impact on the specific relationships between organizational commitment and dark side of
personality, as well as core self evaluations?
As a consequence of the above, the present study aims to make one of the first attempts to
explore the potential relationships between the Dark and Core Traits and organizational
commitment, examining at the same time the influential role of emotional intelligence on these
relationships. To do so, a cross-cultural research was conducted, between British and Greek
employees. This choice to carry out an intercultural study was initially prompted by the statement
that the rising globalization of commerce, organizations and economy as well as the increased
cultural diversity within working environments requires an examination of the ability to apply
organizational theory and research findings among different cultures (Hausmann, Mueller, Hattrup
& Spiess, 2013). Furthermore, the analysis of the topic through an intercultural perspective can
offer a better understanding of the different attitudes that individuals adopt toward their
organizations and also highlight how different people, from different countries behave towards the
same goal, namely business.
Organizational Commitment, Dark Personality and CSE: Theory and Research
In the first part of the study, a review of the theoretical framework and research that has
been made in terms of the relationship between Organizational Commitment, Dark Personality
and Core Self Evaluations is presented as well as their interaction with Emotional Intelligence.
Moreover, the cultural contexts into which the presented relationships between variables are
developed will be discussed. In the second part of the study, the analysis of the hypothesized
connections is presented, followed by the third part and the discussion of the results obtained, as
well as the limitations of the study and suggestions for further research. To begin with, for a

10
better understanding of the research variables and the relationship between them, it would be
necessary to start with an overview of their definitions and theoretical framework, proceeding then
to the more specialized parts of research and contexts’ cultural analysis.
Defining Organizational Commitment-The Three Component Model
Over the years, the term of organizational commitment has been formulated and measured in
many different ways (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). In one of the first studies on this topic,
Mowday, Steers & Porter (1979) define organizational commitment as ‘the relative strength of an
individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization’ (p. 4). Almost a
decade later O'Reilly & Chatman (1986) provide another perspective on the definition of
organizational commitment, developing a multidimensional model, based on the statement that
commitment is an attitude associated with the organization. According to their theory, there are
three types of organizational commitment; compliance, identification and internalization
(O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991).
In the following years, the study of organizational commitment continued to be a main
subject of research in Industrial/Organizational psychology and more researchers discovered new
models hence to provide a guide for new research and enhance theory and practice (Penley &
Gould, 1988; Jaros, Jermier, Koehler & Sincich, 1993). A common factor of all these models
proposed is that commitment is a structure with multiple dimensions and each dimension has its
own implications, correlates and antecedents (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky 2002).
Despite the variety of definitions and models that had appeared to that time, the prevailing one
was introduced by Meyer and Allen in the early 1990s known as The Three Component Model.

11
This model supports that organizational commitment comes in three separate forms:
affective commitment (AC), normative commitment (NC) and continuance commitment (CC).
Specifically, employees may commit to their organizations for three main reasons; first because
they are emotionally attached to it (affective commitment), secondly they have a sense of
obligation to remain (normative commitment) or finally they meditate the potential costs in the
case of departure (continuance commitment) (Solinger, Olffen, Roe & Zedeck, 2008).
All three components represent important aspects of organizational life and have been
extensively researched and analyzed (Cohen, A., 2003; Solinger, Olffen, Roe & Zedeck, 2008;
Meyer & Maltin, 2010). However affective organizational commitment is the one that has
attracted more researchers’ attention so far, as it is not only positively connected with employees’
high effectiveness and productivity (Thomas, Whitman & Viswesvaran, 2010) but also negatively
connected with important aspects of counterproductive work behavior like turnover and
absenteeism (Shore & Martin, 1989; Somers, 1995; Somers, 2009). Affective organizational
commitment, being the emotional dimension of the Three Component Model, will also be the main
variable of the current research.
Dark Triad: The Dark Side of Organizational Commitment
Dark Triad consisting of Narcissism, Psychopathy and Machiavellianism is a set of
subclinical traits (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) which has been extensively linked to negative
organizational outcomes like job dissatisfaction and counterproductive work performance
(O'Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, McDaniel, & Kozlowski 2012). However, limited range of research to
date has explored the bond between the latter and organizational commitment, highlighting that
the existence of any of the three traits decreases its rates among employees (Zettler, Friedrich &

12
Hilbig, 2011; Boddy, Ladyshewsky & Galvin, 2010). Thus, because of this lack of literature
background we draw most of the information from similar studies, mainly conducted towards job
satisfaction and job performance, as these organizational phenomena are closely and positively
related (even distinct) with organizational commitment (Yiing & Ahmad, 2009) and even more
with the affective type (Van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). According to these studies,
narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy are negatively correlated with the above work
values (Mathieu, C., 2013).
In more detail, findings about narcissism in the workplace, has usually been contradicted,
supporting on the one hand that there is a variety of negative organizational outcomes stemming
from it, like job dissatisfaction (Mathieu, 2013), toxic leadership (Higgs, 2009) and difficulty in
completing work tasks successfully (Judge, LePine & Rich, 2006). On the other hand, a number of
studies have also linked narcissism with positive organizational outcomes like promotions, since it
has been observed that narcissists are in general highly motivated people, who are believed to
strive for personal promotion (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). However, no empirical findings have
connected so far narcissism with organizational commitment, neither positively or negatively, and
any hypothesized connection is based on the above similar studies.
In terms of Psychopaths, they are in general introverts, characterized by a difficulty or
inability to understand other people around them or the social mechanisms at play, while at the
same time they do not feel guilty when hurting someone with their actions and adopt a general
antisocial behavior (Rauthmann & Gerald, 2012). Particularly, in the working environment,
psychopaths are the ones most likely to take risks as they are driven to achieving their ends
irrespective of the cost (Crysel, Crosier & Webster, 2013). However, they do not develop good
and healthy relations with their colleagues, they lack team spirit and cooperation and finally they

13
are not able to deal with deadlines or carry out the responsibilities they have undertaken (O'Boyle,
Forsyth, Banks, McDaniel, & Kozlowski 2012). Although there are not empirical findings
connecting psychopathy and organizational commitment, findings stemming from similar studies
suggest a negative correlation between that and organizational outcomes (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, &
Galvin, 2010; Boddy, 2014).
Finally, Machiavellianism is the last in the scale of the three dark traits of personality,
assuming its name from Niccolo Machiavelli and his principles on increasing political power.
According to Jones and Paulhus (2009), Machiavellians adopt negative perceptions towards other
people and they are likely to violate the ethics and rules when making choices. One important
aspect of their personality is that they consider themselves as great manipulators of other people,
even if their emotional intelligence rates do not support their belief (Dahling, Whitaker & Levy,
2009). Furthermore, individuals with high scores in Machiavellianism are likely to achieve
success in their career but they get more easily adapted to un-organized and unstructured work
contexts. In terms of their relationships with others, Machiavellians may develop negative
behaviors like lying, betraying or even tricking, but overall they do not develop an excessive
antisocial behavior (Jones & Paulhus, 2009).
Machiavellianism is the only of the three dark traits that has been directly explored from a
small amount of studies towards its relation to organizational commitment (Becker & Dan O'Hair,
2007; Zettler, Friedrich & Hilbig, 2011). According to the above studies, this type of personality
obscures the prediction of commitment to organizations. This happens because Machiavellians
tend to follow their own personal plans, without espousing the organizational targets and have
limited interaction and communication with their colleagues (Dahling, Whitaker & Levy, 2009).
In general Machiavellians, tend to consider their company and people working in it, as one more

14
way towards the achievement of their personal goals for status and power (Zettler, Friedrich &
Hilbig, 2011). This fact, usually leads to interpersonal conflicts in the workplace, making it less
interesting and enjoyable for Machiavellians, without that being the norm (Bagozzi, Verbeke,
Dietvorst, Belschak, Van den Berg & Rietdijk, 2013).
Based on all the above research findings, as well as the special characteristics of each type
of personality belonging to Dark Triad, we hypothesize that all three Dark Traits will negatively
predict affective organizational commitment, meaning that the higher the degree of the traits the
less the degree of affective commitment across employees.
H1: Dark Traits are negative predictors of affective organizational commitment.
Core Self Evaluations: The Bright Side of Organizational Commitment
Personality traits are the driving force behind deeds, feelings and mentality as they are not
only naturally occurring tendencies but also can assist or hinder people in their everyday lives.
However, individuals’ self-concept is equally important and for that reason Core Self Evaluations
are also known as the bright side of organizational outcomes (Resick, Whitman, Weingarden,
Hiller, & Kozlowski, 2009).
Core self evaluations is a recently introduced term by Judge et al., (1997) and refers to
four main traits: self esteem, self-efficacy, emotional stability and locus of control. Self esteem is
defined as a person’s evaluation of their own strengths and weaknesses, while generalized self-
efficacy referring to one’s appraisal of their ability to complete a given task successfully or more
generally speaking, to handle any given situation and to activate problem solving skills. Emotional
stability refers to one’s tendency to experience feelings of security and calmness and lastly, locus
of control is when one accepts that it is an individual’s actions and not other forces such as luck,

15
destiny or other individuals ranking higher than him, at play securing the outcomes of his deeds
(Ferris, Johnson, Rosen & Tan, 2012).
Following their introduction, Core Traits were widely used in the investigation of a
number of organizational phenomena, including work satisfaction, performance (Bono & Judge,
2003) and engagement (Rich, LePine & Crawford, 2010). Through these studies, empirical
evidence of their importance was provided, as all four traits were positively linked to all the above
work attitudes. What made these traits so popular among the investigators is the importance of
meaning as core self evaluations respond to the core personal beliefs that people develop and hold
for themselves in terms of their self worth, capabilities and competencies (Ferris, D. L., et al.,
2012). These beliefs have been gaining wider acclaim, as their role in many aspects of a person’s
life and development seems vital.
Contrary to the dark triad, more publications come to support the relationship between core
self evaluations and affective organizational commitment, even though more research is needed.
In a meta-analytic review, Meyer et al., (2002), found that affective commitment is utterly linked
to high self confident employees (high in self esteem and self efficacy), contrary to the ones who
had low self confidence and did not believe in themselves and their competences. A close positive
relation between organizational self esteem (one more specific dimension of self esteem) and
organizational commitment was also found according to a meta-analysis conducted by Pierce and
Gardner, (2004). However, locus of control is the core that has received the most empirical
attention (Stumpp et al., 2009; Kittinger, Walker, Cope & Wuensch, 2009). According to a
number of studies, internal locus of control is positively correlated with affective organizational
commitment (Coleman & Cooper, 1999), something that has also been confirmed by recent meta-
analysis (Ng, Sorensen & Eby, 2006).

16
According to the above findings and the theoretical framework of core self evaluations that
was presented, we hypothesize that in contrast to Dark Triad, Core Self Evaluations Traits will
positively predict affective organizational commitment, meaning that the higher the degree of
Core Traits, the stronger employees’ affective commitment to organizations.
H2: Core Self Evaluations Traits are positive predictors of affective organizational
commitment.
Emotional Intelligence: A Trait in Question?
Emotional Intelligence is defined as a combination between intelligence and emotions
(Mayer, Salovey& Caruso, 2004). Other definitions also indicate that emotional intelligence refers
to the way people view their emotional abilities at a subconscious level (Petrides, Perez-Gonzalez,
Furnham & Carlos Perez-Gonzalez, 2007). Beyond the complexity of its definition Emotional
intelligence is a trait that has a positive relationship with the most of organizational outcomes,
such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Abraham, 1999; Carmeli, 2003). More
specifically a number of studies concerning emotional intelligence and work related variables
support that, employees with high rates of emotional intelligence express accordingly high levels
of positive job performance as well as commitment to their organizations. One of these studies,
conducted by Nikolaou & Tsaousis (2002), highlights the strong positive connection between
emotional intelligence and organizational commitment, while Carmeli (2003) provides particular
evidence of a positive relationship between emotional intelligence and the dimension of affective
commitment.
Regarding the existing relationships between emotional intelligence and Dark Triad, as
well as Core Self Evaluations, there is empirical evidence supporting both. However, an important

17
difference is observed. Emotional intelligence has been found to be negatively correlated with the
dark traits (Kilduff, Chiaburu & Menges, 2010), while on the other hand a positive relation has
been supported between it and core self evaluations (Kluemper, 2008). In particular, Petrides,
Vernon, Schermer & Veselka (2011), found that emotional intelligence is positively correlated
with narcissism but negatively correlated with Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Findings
concerning the negative relationship with Machiavellianism are also supported from other studies
conducted on this field (Austin, N. J., et al., 2007).
As regards the connection between emotional intelligence and Core Self Evaluations, a
positive relation has been observed between them. More specifically, researchers state, that the
higher emotional intelligence, the higher core self evaluations present (Kluemper, 2008; Sun,
Wang & Kong, 2014). As a consequence of the above researched correlations and the empirical
findings that support them, two more hypotheses ensue:
H3: Emotional Intelligence does not moderate the relationship between Dark Triad and
affective organizational commitment.
H4: Emotional Intelligence moderates the relationship between Core Self Evaluations and
affective organizational commitment.
The Cultural Contexts of the Study
What is culture?
A country’s culture is its own identity, shaped by a background that has evolved through
centuries or in some cases even millennia, and which helps bind the people of this given country
together, providing them with a unique and separate identity which is voiced through their
literature, music and art (Meyer, Stanley, Jackson, McInnis, Maltin, Elyse & Sheppard, 2012). For

18
the purposes of this study, two different cultures have been scrutinized and juxtaposed so as to
investigate whether there is a valid connection between the Dark Side of Personality, Core Self
Evaluations and commitment to organization.
Individualistic and Collectivistic Societies
Cross-cultural studies can be conducted based on an emic (the examination of a construct
which is developed within a particular culture) or an etic approach (a wider range of comparative
analyses between two or more cultures) (Berry, 1969). Although the majority of researchers tend
to use the etic approach in order to make cross-cultural comparisons, it has been observed that the
best practice in this kind of research, and particularly in organizational studies, is a combination of
emic-etic approaches (Gelfand, Erez & Aycan, 2007). In that way, instead of recognizing the emic
dimensions of one culture and just applying them to another culture, researchers seek to achieve
first emic awareness about the total of the cultures participating in the study, so to avoid culture
bias and get a better understanding of the cultural differences (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003). To
achieve this, a brief review of the cultural norms that shape and develop working environments in
the respective countries is presented, before embarking on a more detailed examination of each
country’s traits.
The studies conducted so far, in order to explore organizational commitment in different
cultural contexts, have been based on the comparison between collectivistic and individualistic
societies (Meyer, et al., 2012). Individualism and collectivism are two terms coined to describe
the difference between individuals who are more self-oriented and act toward their own goals and
individuals who are more team oriented and act toward the common good of the social system
(Earley, 1989). Later on, Hofstede (1980) broadened the sense of the terms in an effort to identify
societal tendencies. Thus, societies like the UK appear to exhibit a rather individualistic tendency

19
as a whole with citizens quite oriented towards the accomplishment of personal goals. Greece is
classified as a rather collectivistic society, comprising citizens oriented towards the achievement
of social goals (Moorman, & Blakely, 1995; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).
The present study attempts to highlight how cultural differences may influence employees’
commitment to organizations in a geopolitical context, thus highlighting differences or perhaps
even similarities that are transcultural and transspatial; hence, the choice of the two countries, UK
and Greece. However, due to limited literature evidence, differences are mostly expected to be
found due to differences arising between individualistic and collectivistic societies (Grief, 1994;
Brewer, & Chen, 2007).

20
Method
Participants
In the current cross-cultural study, participants (N=373) came from two samples. The first
sample was composed of British employees (N=203) and the second sample of Greek employees
(N=170). Both groups of participants took part in the study voluntarily.
As far as the British employees who participated in the study were concerned, the 39.9%
were males and the 60.1% were females while the corresponding percentage for Greek employees,
was 54.7% for males and 45.3% for females. In terms of the age range, it has been observed that in
both cultures equally, the participation response comprises the age group of between 25-36 years
old (51.2% and 48.2% respectively) with M= 2.31 SD= .653 for the Greek employees and M=
2.30 SD= .632. In terms of educational background of the participants, in Britain 28% were
university graduates (Bachelor Degree) and a 46% were holders of a Master Degree while in
Greece the rates are vice versa, giving 55% for university graduates (Bachelor Degree) and 20%
for Master holders.
Measurements
Organizational Commitment
Organizational Commitment was measured using a tool developed by Meyer and Allen
(1997). This measure describes the three components of Organizational Commitment (Affective,
Normative and Continuance) which is the dependent variable in the present study. It consists of 30
items in total. From these items eight correspond to AOC, 14 correspond to NOC (eight for the
original subscale and six for the revised) and eight to COC (original and revised subscale). Some

21
of the items should be reversed during measurement procedure. Participants gave their responses
based on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from Completely Disagree (number 1) to Completely
Agree (number 7). The validity of the tool has been supported by a confirmatory analysis
conducted by Hackett et al., (1994) and Dunham et al., (1994).
Dark Side of Personality
The independent variable of Dark Side of Personality was measured using the Dirty
Dozen. This is a concise measure of 12 items coming from the longer measure of Dark Triad
which consists of 90 items (Jonason & Webster, 2010). The Dirty Dozen measures the three Dark
Personality Traits of Narcissism, Psychopathy and Machiavellianism (Paulhus, et al., 2002) using
four items for each subscale. For the purposes of the present study the three subscales will be
used, as well as Dark Triad (the sum of subscales). Participants responded similarly as they had in
the measure of Organizational Commitment, on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from Completely
Disagree (number 1) to Completely Agree (number 7). This new version of Dark Triad measure
improves the efficiency of the tool, as its short length does not tire participants allowing the three
subscales to be measured using the same response scale format.
Core Self-Evaluations
Self-esteem, Generalized Self efficacy, Locus of control and Emotional Stability are also
independent variables, measured using the tool of Core Self Evaluations, which consists in total of
12 items. Some of these items, and more specifically items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12, should be
reversed during the measurement procedure (Judge, T., et al., 2003). In each of the four subscales
correspond three items. For the purposes of the present study will be used the four sub-factors, as
well as CSE (the sum of sub-factors) Participants follow the same procedure as before to give their
responses, using a 7-Likert scale ranging from Completely Disagree (number 1) to Completely

22
Agree (number 7). Meta-analysis on the relation between CSE and organizational commitment
supports a positive significant relation between CSE and AOC (p= .30) (Ferris, et al., 2012).
Emotional Intelligence
For the measurement of Emotional Intelligence, the measure of Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF) was selected. This questionnaire consists of
30 items and is based on the long form of TEIQue, while it was designed to measure global trait
Emotional Intelligence (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). According to studies conducted by Cooper
and Petrides (2010) there is a good distinction among the majority of the items and threshold
parameters and a lot of information is provided about the item values. For this scale, participants
responded same as above.
Procedure
For the purposes of the present study, two questionnaires were created; one addressing the
British sample and one the Greek sample. The survey was anonymous and participants were
required to be only employees, either on the private or the public sector. Both questionnaires
consisted of 98 questions, which measured employees’ organizational commitment, dark side of
personality as well as core self evaluations and emotional intelligence. Demographic questions
were included as well. Its completion lasted approximately 10-15 minutes. To validate the
questionnaire for the Greek population, the method of back translation was used, and the
questionnaire was translated from experts in Greek and then back to English.
The study lasted for two months, from May to June, and was conducted in both countries
separately. Being an online survey, both questionnaires were uploaded simultaneously on social
network pages accompanied by a letter with typical instructions and employees were asked to

23
participate on a voluntary basis. After the survey was completed, the results obtained began to be
analyzed.
For the analysis of the data SPSS 22 software was used. For the examination of the general
assumption that there will be differences between the Greek and the British sample of participants,
at first a two-tailed T-test was performed in order to show the differences across the answers given
from both samples in the main scales and subscales of the study. Afterwards, four T-tests were
also conducted in order to investigate the significant differences between the two samples,
regarding the parameters of pride, organizational fairness, religiousness and political views. In the
next step of the study a Pearson correlation analysis was performed between the main scales of the
study, as well as between the subscales
Moving to the next level and the examination of our hypotheses concerning the predictable
value of the independent variables of Dark Side of Personality, and its sub factors, as well as Core
Self Evaluations and their sub factors on the dependent variable of affective organizational
commitment, a stepwise multiple regression was performed. During this procedure the dependent
variable, as well as the independent variables, were the same for both samples. In the last part of
the study, moderation analyses was used on the findings that resulted from the linear regression, to
examine our last hypothesis, regarding the moderating role of emotional intelligence on the
relationships between Dark Side and affective commitment and Core Traits and affective
commitment.

24
Results
Reliability Scales
At the beginning of the study we analyzed the reliability scale for each computed variable
using Cronbach’s alpha which is the most extensively used measure for reliability (Shavelson,
2004). According to the results that are presented all four scales show good reliability, with
emotional intelligence having the highest reliability compared to the other scales for both
nationalities.
Table 1
Reliability Scale
Cronbach’s
alpha
Variable Greek British
Core Self Evaluations .86 .81
Dark Side of Personality .85 .82
Emotional Intelligence .89 .89
Organizational
Commitment
.88 .86
Descriptive Statistics
Demographics
In both samples, there was found statistically significant difference between males and
females χ2
(1) = 8.15, p = .004. More specifically in Greece more males took part in the study,
contrary to Britain where more females took part in the study. The distribution of the age groups
did not reveal any statistically significant difference, χ2
(4) = 5.68, p = .22. Regarding also the job
related parameters, there were significant differences between British and Greek sample across
some of the demographic measures. Indicatively, British had been working on average fewer years
in their company (M= 3.17 SD= 4.2) comparing to Greeks (M= 7.18 SD= 6.7), however, no

25
statistical difference had been observed among Greek employees (M=1.92 SD= 1.242) and British
employees (M= 1.82 SD= 1.189) in times of being promoted t (371) = .753, p = .095.
Differences in scores across the main scales and subscales between two groups
In the next part of the study a T-test was performed in order to investigate if there were any
differences across the scores of the computed variables between the Greek and British
participants. As it is shown in Table 2.1 there are significant differences among the most scales
and subscales between British and Greek sample. For example, it is observed that in general
British participants score higher than the Greek in the scales of CSE, as well as to the sub-factors
belonging to that scale and emotional intelligence, while Greek participants seem to be more
Machiavellians. However, there is no significant difference among the British and Greek sample
of employees in the main scale of Dark Side. Furthermore, no significant difference is observed
between the two groups in terms of affective organizational commitment which is the dependent
variable of the study.
Table 2.1
Descriptive Statistics of the main scales and subscales of Greek and British employees
Scales-Subscales
Greek employees
(N=170)
Mean SD
British employees
(N= 203)
Mean SD t
CSE 4.53 .83 4.83 .80 -3.47**
DSP 3.22 .89 3.13 .93 .89
EI 4.68 .66 5.02 .69 -4.80**
OC 4.09 .39 3.82 .52 5.60**
Locus of Control 4.09 1.11 4.56 1.07 -4.10**
Emotional Stability 4.20 1.01 4.46 1.13 -2.30*
Self Efficacy 5.25 .80 5.67 .76 -5.11**

26
Self Esteem 4.59 1.12 4.63 1.15 -.32
Narcissism 4.07 1.14 4.03 1.33 .29
Psychopathy 2.79 .99 2.58 1.10 -1.78
Machiavellianism 3.20 1.42 2.67 1.30 3.73**
AOC 4.48 1.06 4.31 1.08 1.54
NOC 4.01 .83 3.57 .95 4.80**
COC 4.95 .88 4.06 1.07 8.63**
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01, CSE, core self evaluations; DSP, dark side of personality; EI, emotional
intelligence; OC, organizational commitment; AOC, affective organizational commitment; NOC,
normative organizational commitment; COC, continuance organizational commitment.
Differences in fairness, religiousness and political perspectives between the two groups
Four T-tests were also performed to investigate differences between the two groups, in
terms of how proud they are to work for their organization, how fair do they believe is their
organization treating its employees and also differences concerning their religiousness and
political perspectives. According to Table 2.2 Greeks are significantly more religious than British
and a marginally significant difference also exists between them regarding the organizational
fairness they perceive. As about the feelings of employees pride towards their organization, as
well as their political views, no significant difference is shown.

27
Table 2.2
Descriptive Statistics of pride, fairness, religiousness and political perspectives of Greek and British
employees
Greek employees
(N=170)
Mean SD
British employees
(N= 203)
Mean SD T
Pride 4.76 1.34 4.58 1.20 1.35
Fairness 4.43 1.57 4.12 1.42 1.98*
Religiousness 3.94 1.74 3.20 1.69 4.15**
Political
perspectives
3.74 1.33 3.57 1.40 1.22
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01
Correlations among study variables
In the next step of the analysis, the existing correlations among the computed variables
were tested in pairs, using Pearson Correlation Analysis for both nationalities. First, Pearson
Coefficients was used to calculate the overall correlations between the original scales of
Organizational Commitment, Dark Side, CSE and Emotional Intelligence. Afterward, we
performed a more detailed analysis using again Pearson Coefficients and calculated paired
correlations between the subscales of each main scale, for both nationalities.
Overall Correlations between Computed Variables
Pearson Correlation Analysis was used to investigate the overall correlations between the
four computed variables. As it is shown in Table 3.1 regarding the Greek sample, only one strong
positive correlation exists between the scales of Core Self Evaluations and Emotional Intelligence,
but no other kind of correlation between the main scales under research seems to exist. Moving to

28
the British group of participants more correlations are observed. In particular, according to Table
3.2, CSE similarly to the Greek group, are positive correlated with Emotional Intelligence;
however they present a weaker negative correlation towards organizational commitment. Finally,
Dark Side seems to be negative correlated with emotional intelligence, but on the other hand
strong positive correlated with organizational commitment.
Table 3.1
Correlations between the main scales for Greek employees
Measure Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1. CSE 4.53 .83 -
2. DSP 3.21 .89 -.05 -
3. EI 4.70 .66 .78** -.09 -
4. OC 4.10 .39 -.06 .10 -.05 -
Note. *p < .05;**p < .01, CSE, core self evaluations; DSP, dark side of personality; EI, emotional
intelligence; OC, organizational commitment.
Table 3.2
Correlations between the main scales for British employees
Measure Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1. CSE 4.82 .80 -
2. DSP 3.13 .92 -.12 -
3. EI 5.02 .69 .71** -.15* -
4. OC 3.82 .52 -.15* .22** -.12 -
Note. *p < .05;**p < .01, CSE, core self evaluations; DSP, dark side of personality; EI, emotional
intelligence; OC, organizational commitment.
In summary, the dependant variable of Organizational Commitment showed no significant
correlation with any of the independent variables across Greek sample but it showed a strong
positive correlation with Dark Side of Personality across the British sample.

29
Correlations between Subscales of Computed Variables
In terms of the correlations between the subscales of the original scales, results showed
that all the four subscales of Core Self Evaluations (locus of control, emotional stability,
generalized self efficacy and self esteem) are positively correlated with the subscale of affective
commitment and significantly negative correlated with continuance commitment for both
nationalities (excluding emotional stability for Greeks and self efficacy for British). Furthermore,
there is statistical significant positive correlation between emotional intelligence and affective
commitment in both samples as well as between emotional intelligence and all the four subscales
of Core Self Evaluations. No significant correlation was found among the Dark Traits and
subscales of organizational commitment, neither for Greeks nor for British.
Table 3.3
Correlations between the subscales for Greek employees
Measure Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. LOC 4.10 1.11 -
2. ES 4.20 1.01 .60** -
3. SEFF 5.26 .80 .49** .45** -
4. SES 4.60 1.12 .56** .64** .58** -
5. N 4.10 1.14 .06 -.14 .09 -.17* -
6. P 2.60 .98 .00 .02 -.08 -.01 .20** -
7. Mach 3.20 1.41 .08 -.10 -.05 -.02 .35** .52** -
8. AOC 4.48 1.05 .33** .20** .25** .18* .15 .01 .15* -
9. NOC 4.00 .83 .17* .04 .10 .07 .08 -.01 .08 .61** -
10. COC 4.96 .88 -.16* -.15 -.21** -.18* .04 -.07 -.02 .10 .11 -
11. EI 4.69 .66 .60** .64** .64** .67** -.04 -.06 -.10 .27** -.01 -.11 -
Note. *p < .05;**p < .0, LOC, locus of control; ES, emotional stability; SEFF, self efficacy; SES, self-esteem; N,
narcissism; P, psychopathy; Mach, Machiavellianism; AOC, affective organizational commitment; NOC, normative
organizational commitment; COC, continuance organizational commitment; EI, emotional intelligence.

30
Table 3.4
Correlations between the subscales for British employees
Measure Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. LOC 4.55 1.07 -
2. ES 4.45 1.13 .48** -
3. SEFF 5.66 .76 .35** .30** -
4. SES 4.63 1.15 .52** .63** .45** -
5. N 4.03 1.33 -.08 -.12 .02 -.11 -
6. P 2.78 1.10 -.03 -.10 -.06 -.06 .21** -
7. Mach 2.68 1.30 -.00 -.11 -.07 -.10 .40** .47** -
8. AOC 4.30 1.07 .29** -.18* .22** .21** -.00 .02 .04 -
9. NOC 3.57 .95 .08 -.01 -.03 .05 .00 -.01 -.01 .50** -
10. COC 4.06 1.07 -.21** -.26** -.12 .22** .05 -.01 .10 .05 .21** -
11. EI 5.02 .69 .54** -.57** .55** .57** -.08 -.17* .-11 .25** .02 -.29** -
Note. *p < .05;**p < .0, LOC, locus of control; ES, emotional stability; SEFF, self efficacy; SES, self-esteem; N,
narcissism; P, psychopathy; Mach, Machiavellianism; AOC, affective organizational commitment; NOC, normative
organizational commitment; COC, continuance organizational commitment; EI, emotional intelligence.
Regression Analysis
Age, gender, years of employment, promotions, religiousness, emotional intelligence and
the scales-subscales of core self evaluations and dark side of personality were used in a stepwise
multiple regression analysis to predict affective organizational commitment in Greek and British
employees.
Starting from the Greek sample, the prediction model contained four of the sixteen
predictors and was reached in four steps with no variables removed. The model was statistically
significant, F (4, 165) = 11.793, p < .00, and accounted for 22% of the variance of affective
organizational commitment (Adjusted R2
= .203). Affective commitment was primary predicted by
locus of control and afterwards by promotions, age and Machiavellianism. Age is the strongest
predictor since it has the highest coefficient value, followed by promotions and locus of control,
while Machiavellianism received the lowest of the four weights. However, regarding age, because
the Unstanadrized beta Coefficients is negative, we interpret that for every 1-unit increase in age,
the dependent variable will decrease.

31
Table 4.1
Stepwise Regression Analysis for the Greek Group
Model t Sig.B R2
adj Beta df F
1
Locus of control ,32 .11 ,33 4,56 ,000 168 20.76
2
Locus of control ,26 .15 ,27 3,7 ,000 167 15.78
Promotions ,20 ,23 3,12 ,002
3
Locus of control ,25 ,26 3,58 ,000 166 14.01
Promotions ,28 .19 ,33 4,13 ,000
Age -,37 -,23 -2,99 ,003
4
Locus of control ,23 ,24 3,40 ,001
Promotions ,29 .20 ,34 4,31 ,000 165 11.79
Age -,36 -,22 -2,92 ,004
Machiavellianis
m
,11 ,14 2,07 ,040
a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment
b. Selecting only cases for which GROUP = Greek
Moving to the British sample, the prediction model contained five of the sixteen predictors
and was reached in five steps with no variables removed. The model was statistically significant, F
(5, 196) = 10.650, p < .001, and accounted for approximately 21% of the variance of affective
organizational commitment (Adjusted R2
= .194). Affective commitment was primary predicted
by promotions, followed by locus of control, years of employment, self efficacy and religiousness.
Self efficacy received the strongest weight in the model, followed by locus of control, promotions
and religiousness, while years of employment received the lowest of five weights.

32
Table 4.2
Stepwise Regression Analysis for British Group
Model t Sig.B R2
adj Beta df F
1
Promotions ,28 .10 ,31 4,53 ,000 200 20.60
2
Promotions ,25 .15 ,30 4,19 ,000 199 18.59
Locus of
Control
,26 ,26 3,10 ,000
3
Promotions ,19 ,21 2,10 ,003
Locus of
Control
,26 .17 ,26 4,10 ,000 198 14.21
Years
Employed
,04 ,16 2,19 ,030
4
Promotions ,19 ,21 2,90 ,004
Locus of
Control
,21 .18 ,21 3,06 ,003
Years
Employed
,04 ,17 2,38 ,018 197 11.10
Self Efficacy ,21 ,15 2,15 ,033
5
Promotions ,17 ,19 2,64 ,009
Locus of
Control
,20 .20 ,20 2,84 ,005
Years
Employed
,05 ,17 2,41 ,017 196 10.65
Self Efficacy ,21 ,15 2,16 ,032
Religiousness ,10 ,14 2,15 ,037
a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment
b. Selecting only cases for which GROUP = British

33
Moderation
In the last part of the study we performed moderation analysis, to investigate if there is any
moderating effect of emotional intelligence trait on the relationships that were found between the
dimensions of dark side of personality and core self evaluations with the dependent variable of
affective organizational commitment for Greek and British employees. More specifically, for the
Greek group of employees moderating analysis was performed towards the relationships of locus
of control and affective organizational commitment, as well as Machiavellianism and affective
commitment. Simple moderation analysis showed in both cases that the interaction is not
significant: First case: b= .0865, 95% CI [0.028, 0.450] t= 0.66, p= .51> .05, Second case: b=
.004, 95% CI [-.0164, .2896] t= 0.40, p= .97> .05.
Table 5.1
Moderation Analysis in Greek Sample
Model tF R2
p df1 df2
1
Emotional
Intelligence
Locus of Control
Interaction
7.20 .13 .34
.03
.51
.98
2.24
.66
3 166
2
Emotional
Intelligence
Machiavellianism
Interaction
5.17 .11 .01
.08
3.31
1.76
3 166
.10 .040
We also examined the moderating effect of emotional intelligence on the relationship
between locus of control and affective organizational commitment as well as emotional
intelligence and self efficacy that was found for British employees in the previous analysis, in

34
order to examine the moderating effect of emotional intelligence on the relationship between core
self evaluations and affective commitment.
Table 5.2
Moderation Analysis in British Sample
Model tF R2
p df1 df2
1
Emotional
Intelligence
Locus of Control
Interaction
7.53 .10 .21
.02
.22
1.28
2.53
-1.24
3 199
2
Emotional
Intelligence
Self Efficacy
Interaction
7.76 .09 .02
.05
.20
2.44
.68
-1.31
3 199
Simple moderation analysis showed in both cases that the interaction is non-significant:
First Case: b= -0.1049, 95% CI [0.046, 0.38087] t= -1.24, p= .216> .05, Second Case: b= -.1884,
95% CI [-.1788, .3658] t= -1.31, p= .192 > .05, indicating that the relationship between affective
organizational commitment and locus of control, is not moderated by emotional intelligence.

35
Discussion
The current study is one of the first attempts to explore the ways in which dark side of
personality and core self evaluations are linked to affective organizational commitment, as well as
the role of emotional intelligence in these linkages. The innovative feature of this research is the
exploration of the above relationships in a cross-cultural context, between two culturally different
countries, Greece and Great Britain. The existing established contrast between Anglo and Greek
cultures (Bond et al., 2004; Smith, Paterson & Schwartz, 2002), worked as a perfect ground to
examine our hypotheses and research questions and lay the foundations for future research.
However, it must be taken into consideration that the hypotheses made to begin with, were
adversely affected by the lack of bibliography on the topic under discussion and based mainly on
studies conducted on similar topics and fields.
Beginning with the results of the descriptive statistical analysis it was observed that they
lead to the acceptance of our hypothesis, that there are differences between the Greek and the
British employees across the traits and different scales of the study. More specifically, British
employees had higher scores in the overall scale of core self evaluations, as well as to the most of
the subscales belonging to them, while Greeks were significantly more Machiavellians than
British employees. However, this difference in scores was not unexpected. Greece is a country that
has been on economical crisis for the last six years. This fact has led to the increasing rise of
unemployment and at the same time has changed a lot, individuals’ work attitudes (Markovits,
Boer & Van Dick, 2013). Even though it is a collectivistic society (Hofstede, 1980) over the last
years, people have made a turn to their selves, trying to keep their jobs, and use every means to
accomplish it. On the other hand, it seems quite reasonable for British employees, who live and
work in an individualistic society on the path of economical development, to place more emphasis

36
on their personal strengths and express more self confidence and satisfaction (Chen, Jingqiu, &
Wang, Lei, 2007; Fisher & Mansell, 2009).
Following these results, a quite unexpected finding was that both samples of employees
had no significant differences towards their scores on affective commitment. This finding is called
unexpected, taking into account studies which support that affective organizational commitment
differentiates among individualistic and collectivistic societies (Hogg & Terry, 2000). For
example, according to certain published studies, affective commitment should touch higher levels
in collectivistic societies, where people are closer to each other and share the same goals working
mostly in groups and towards the common good (Randall, 1993). On the other hand there are also
studies supporting the opposite, stating that affective commitment is an individualistic feature,
which stems mostly from a well organized HRM system that aims to serve in the best way its
employees’ needs (Fisher & Mansell, 2009). However, no study so far, had referred to similar
rates of affective commitment between the two kinds of cultures so there is scope for more
investigation in this field.
Adding to the aforementioned, one more interesting finding resulted from the descriptive
analysis and explains the absence of difference in rates of commitment among British and Greek
employees, is that despite their differences across the various traits and scales, they both expressed
that feel proud of being part of the working force of their organizations. This may stem from the
fact that both groups believe as well that their organizations have a fair treatment towards its
employees. Organizational fairness and support are positively related with job satisfaction and
work engagement, which in turn have a positive relation with employees’ commitment (Yoon,
Jeongkoo, & Thye, 2002). Moreover, organizational justice and fairness decreases the rates of
corresponding behaviors and employees’ intention to depart from the organization, while at the

37
same time increases the rates of affective commitment (Moorman, 1991; Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001).
The clarification of the differences among the scores of the two groups is the first step
towards a better understanding of the cultural and socio-economical frameworks into which
employees from both nationalities develop affective organizational commitment. However, the
main purpose of the present study was to explore, not only the contexts and the development of
affective commitment in relation to Dark and Core Traits, but also to go further and examine if
these traits act as predictors of affective organizational commitment in both countries. The answer
to this question comes from the results of the multiple regression analysis which was performed
before for both countries. The results of the above analysis partially contradicted our primary
hypothesis, which was that core self evaluations predict affective organizational commitment but
the dark side traits do not.
Predicting Affective Organizational Commitment in British Employees
According to the results of the analysis certain dimensions of core self evaluations are
presented to be predictors of affective organizational commitment in Great Britain. In more
details, the dimensions of self efficacy and locus of control are presented to be positive predictors
of affective commitment among British employees. These findings verify our hypothesis
regarding the predictable value of core self evaluations and come in line with previous findings
which link these traits with employees’ high affective commitment (Luthans, Zhu, & Avolio,
2006; Wang, Bowling, Eschleman, & Kozlowski, 2010). In an individualistic society, where
individuals are more oriented in achieving personal goals and plans, it is reasonable that the main
predictors of their commitment to organizations are based on their self-concept perception and
mainly on the degree of self confidence and gain of control.

38
Religion is another factor that was found to have a positive predictable value. Towards the
understanding of this finding, there is a variety of studies supporting that religious beliefs are
closely connected to work behaviors and mainly satisfaction and organizational commitment in
multicultural countries, where ethnic live and work (Kutcher, Bragger, Rodriguez-Srednicki &
Masco, 2010; Sikorska-Simmons, 2005). Furthermore, these studies claim that religion is a way to
decrease stress when the living and working conditions are very stressful and demanding. These
cases responded in Great Britain which is not only a multicultural country, but also a country with
a thriving economy and as a consequence more stressful and competitive.
Predicting Affective Organizational Commitment in Greek Employees
Machiavellianism and Locus of Control were the main positive predictors of affective
organizational commitment across Greek employees. That means that the more employees adopt
Machiavellian attitudes, as well as feel they have things under control, the more they get
committed to their organizations. This result contradicts our primary hypothesis that Dark Side
Traits are negative predictors of commitment (Zettler, Friedrich & Hilbig, 2011) bringing to the
fore new elements. As it was mentioned before in the descriptive analysis, the high rates of
Machiavellians within the Greek society could stem from the difficult socio-economical situation
in Greece, as the country is in the midst of an ongoing economical crisis. It is a common belief
among psychologists, economists and sociologists that when a country experiences hardships, like
a debt crisis, life and work attitudes can dramatically change (Bell & Blanchflower, 2011).
Regarding the combination of Machiavellianism and Locus of Control, researchers argue
that it usually appears among individuals who feel that do not have the control of their
environment and so adopt Machiavellians’ behaviors in order to gain some control over it (Gable
& Dangello, 1994). Machiavellians are well known for manipulative attitude towards other people

39
and more often towards their colleagues (Jones & Paulhus, 2009). This finding is unexpected for a
collectivistic society, where citizens are team oriented and at the same time raises serious
concerns. These concerns do not address only to the organizational future of the country or the
impact on working conditions, but also to the important influences on an entire culture, due to
difficult external conditions (Markovits, Boer & Van Dick, 2013). However, the lack of
bibliography necessitates further research on this finding.
One more interesting finding that resulted from the present research about Greek
employees’ commitment to their organizations is that age indicates a negative predictor. In other
words, as age increases employees get less committed to their organization. At this point and after
having been referred to the current socio-economical background of the country, it would be also
necessary to mention that the highest rate of Greek participants who took part in the research was
on average 25 to 35 years old. Due to the scarcity of employment, many resort to accepting
employment in fields other than the one they have been trained on or even accepting menial
positions or become employed in the family firm necessity driven. Therefore, many are the
instances when people, feeling oppressed by working in a sector outside their field of study or
training show no sign of diligence, reliability or exhibit an absence of empathy or team spirit.
Promotions: A cross cultural Indicator of Organizational Commitment
Apart from the above traits there is also one more variable that predicts affective
organizational commitment and is common in both countries under research. This variable is not
part of our main hypotheses; however it is worth mentioning it as it can add a lot to our final
findings. The particular variable refers to the number of promotions that employees get during
their career. That means that irrespective of a society being individualistic or collectivistic,
employees tend to be more committed when they expect to get promoted and awarded, as they feel

40
more motivated and satisfied with their organization (Kosteas, 2011). Promotion is a cross-cultural
indicator of affective commitment as it seems to act as an incentive to employees, encouraging
them to strive harder and to be more dedicated. Moreover, at this point it should be noted that
promotions are also highly positively correlated with locus of control, being a means for
employees to gain control and feel more powerful (Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000). Therefore,
promotions predict commitment in both countries.
The role of Emotional Intelligence
In essence, results stemmed from the examination of the role of emotional intelligence trait
on the relationships arising between affective organizational commitment and dark side of
personality, as well as core self evaluations. During the correlation analysis, emotional intelligence
showed positive correlation with the scale of Core Self Evaluations, as well as its subscales and
affective organizational commitment. On the other hand no correlation was found between
emotional intelligence and dark side of personality. All these findings were also supported from
previous findings (Austin, et al., 2007; Petrides, et al., 2011; Sun, Wang & Kong, 2014). Based on
the already existing literature our hypotheses were that emotional intelligence moderates a
possible relationship between CSE and affective organizational commitment, but not any
relationship between affective commitment and any of the three Dark Traits. According to the
moderation analysis our first hypothesis was rejected as no moderating effect was found regarding
the connection between Core Traits and commitment. However, our second hypothesis was
verified, since emotional intelligence does not moderate the existing relationship between
Machiavellianism and affective commitment.

41
Conclusion
The current study explored the connections between employees’ affective commitment to
their organization and Dark Side Traits, as well as Core Self Evaluations in Great Britain and
Greece, coming to the conclusion that certain dimensions of both Trait Scales predict affective
commitment in both countries. More specifically, Self Efficacy and Locus of Control predict
affective organizational commitment in Britain while Machiavellianism and Locus of Control
predict affective organizational commitment in Greece. Apart from these main predictors, also
other predictors were found mainly connected with demographic and cultural characteristics.
However, no moderating effect of the Emotional Intelligence Trait was found. In total 373
questionnaires from both countries were selected and analyzed, providing empirical evidence of
the findings and laying foundations for future research.
Study Limitations
Although the results of the present study might constitute the springboard to future
research, there are certain limitations that should be noted. Primarily, the limited length of time
within which the study was conducted left little scope for a greater number of participants to be
recruited. Furthermore, the size of the samples was not extended enough, nor was there sample
homogeneity owing to random selection. The tool used throughout the research for the collection
of the responses was rather lengthy, consisting of many items, which led, in some cases, a
number of participants to spend on average more time on completing it than anticipated, while in
others to avoid completing it.
One more limitation of the current study may be the interpretation of the tool into Greek.
Albeit carried out by experts, the interpretation of items, terms or cultural working habits
described in the questionnaire may have failed to overcome the cultural barriers thus leading to

42
misconceptions on behalf of the Greek participants. Items of English framework may have been
misconstrued, thus leading to false replies otherwise not preferred.
Lastly, it is of great importance to refer that the current study was based on self reported
data, a fact that may trigger potential problems with social desirability, that is biased responses
owing to the participant’s desire to attract attention or promote a favorable image of the self
(Brener, Nancy, Billy, John & Grady, William, 2003). Nevertheless, the anonymity under which
the subjects participated rather nullifies such possibility.
Implications and Future Directions
The luck of bibliography, in combination with the cultural differences existing between a
collectivistic and an individualistic society are the main reasons why the results of this study were
on the whole not entirely consistent with the original hypotheses formulated at the beginning of
the research. In addition, one more reason is the fact that Greece is a country which only recently
started to be under research on the field of organizational commitment (Markovits, Davis & Van
Dick, 2007) contrary to Great Britain which has already been repeatedly examined and used for
organizational research during the last decades (Pitt, Foreman& Bromfield, 1995; Gallie,
Felstead& Green, 2001).
The present study ushered a new era, pertaining the examination of the dark and bright side
of organizational commitment in Greece as well as added to the existing evidence concerning
Great Britain. Following an extensive statistical analysis, as well as the existing theoretical and
literary background, the new empirical findings provided can be the basis for future research in the
field. The implications can be of vital importance to both major and minor organizations and in a
more general sense societal cohesion. Organizations rely heavily on specifications and research
findings to form successful recruitment criteria whereas the intrinsic characteristics of individuals

43
may be better employed towards productive ends. Social cohesion, in extent, may be bettered
should the educational and vocational training mechanisms work to facilitate the shaping of
characters which incorporate such combinations of behavioral patterns as the ones this study
attempts to prove fundamental for organizational commitment. Such devotion can work for the
benefit of society as a whole.
It is imperative therefore that within the frameworks of future researches and for the better
understanding of the reasons and consequences, as well as the achievement of organizational
commitment more research to be conducted towards its predictors, as well as its behavioral
outcomes and correlates. However, towards the accomplishment of even better results, also
essential parts of the procedure of the research, such the equal size of the samples under research,
as well as the rest of limitations mentioned above, must be taken into consideration. Although
more evidence is required on the presented topic, one is the fact; a new way has already opened.

44
References
Abraham Carmeli. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes,
behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 18(8), 788-813.
Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional intelligence in organizations: A conceptualization. Genetic, Social,
and General Psychology Monographs, 125(2), 209.
Aghdasi, S., Kiamanesh, A. R., & Ebrahim, A. N. (2011). Emotional Intelligence and organizational
commitment: testing the mediatory role of occupational stress and job satisfaction. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1965-1976.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Austin, Elizabeth J., Farrelly, Daniel, Black, Carolyn, & Moore, Helen. (2007). Emotional
intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark
side? Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 179-189.
Bagozzi, R., Verbeke, W., Dietvorst, R., Belschak, F., Van den Berg, W., & Rietdijk, W. (2013).
Theory of Mind and Empathic Explanations of Machiavellianism. Journal of Management, 39(7),
1760-1798.
Barrick, M., Mount, M., & Judge, T. (2001). Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the
New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 9(1‐2), 9-30.
Becker, J., & Dan O'Hair, H. (2007). Machiavellians’ Motives in Organizational Citizenship
Behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 246-267.

45
Bell, D. N., & Blanchflower, D. G. (2011). The crisis, policy reactions and attitudes to globalization
and jobs.
Berry, J. (1969). On Cross-Cultural Comparability. International Journal of Psychology,4(2), 119-
128.
Bishop, J. W., & Dow Scott, K. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a
self-directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 439.
Boddy, C. (2014). Corporate Psychopaths, Conflict, Employee Affective Well-Being and
Counterproductive Work Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 107-121.
Boddy, C., Ladyshewsky, R., & Galvin, R. (2010). The Influence of Corporate Psychopaths on
Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment to Employees. Journal of
Business Ethics, 97(1), 1-19.
Boehnke, K., Arnaut, C., Bremer, T., Chinyemba, R., Kiewitt, Y., Koudadjey, A., Neubert, L.,
(2014). Toward Emically Informed Cross-Cultural Comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 45(10), 1655-1670.
Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2003). Core self‐evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job
satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17(S1), S5-S18.
Brener, Nancy D, Billy, John O.G, & Grady, William R. (2003). Assessment of factors affecting the
validity of self-reported health-risk behavior among adolescents: Evidence from the scientific
literature. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(6), 436-457.
Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward
conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological review, 114(1), 133.

46
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes, behavior and
outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of managerial Psychology, 18(8),
788-813.
Campbell, W. Keith, Hoffman, Brian J., Campbell, Stacy M., & Marchisio, Gaia. (2011). Narcissism
in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268-284.
Chen, Jingqiu, & Wang, Lei. (2007). Locus of control and the three components of commitment to
change. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(3), 503-512.
Choi, D., Oh, I., & Colbert, A. (2015). Understanding Organizational Commitment: A Meta-Analytic
Examination of the Roles of the Five-Factor Model of Personality and Culture. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2015.
Clive Roland Boddy. (2006). The dark side of management decisions: Organizational
psychopaths. Management Decision, 44(10), 1461-1475.
Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace: An integrative approach. Psychology
Press.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(2), 278-321.
Coleman, D., Irving, G., & Cooper, C. (1999). Another look at the locus of control–organizational
commitment relationship: It depends on the form of commitment.Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20(6), 995-1001.
Cooper, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2010). A psychometric analysis of the Trait Emotional Intelligence
Questionnaire–Short Form (TEIQue–SF) using item response theory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 92(5), 449-457.

47
Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: testing an
integrative framework. Psychological bulletin, 131(2), 241.
Crysel, L. C., Crosier, B. S., & Webster, G. D. (2013). The Dark Triad and risk behavior. Personality
and Individual Differences, 54(1), 35-40.
Currivan, D. (1999). The Causal Order of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in
Models of Employee Turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 495-524.
Dahling, J., Whitaker, B., & Levy, P. (2009). The Development and Validation of a New
Machiavellianism Scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219-257.
Drucker, P. F. (1980). The deadly sins in public administration. Public administration review, 103-
106.
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the
People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 565-581.
Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (2001). Values and organizational commitment.International journal of
Manpower, 22(7), 593-599.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to
organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(5), 959-970.
Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations a review and
evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management,38(1), 81-128.
Fischer, R., & Mansell, A. (2009). Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach. Journal
Of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1339-1358.
Gable, M., & Dangello, F. (1994). Locus of Control, Machiavellianism, and Managerial Job
Performance. The Journal of Psychology, 128(5), 599-608.

48
Gallie, D., Felstead, A., & Green, F. (2001). Employer Policies and Organizational Commitment in
Britain 1992–97. Journal of Management Studies, 38(8), 1081-1101.
Gelfand, M., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior.Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 479-514.
Glazer, S., & Kruse, B. (2008). The role of organizational commitment in occupational stress
models. International Journal of Stress Management,15(4), 329.
Greif, A. (1994). Cultural beliefs and the organization of society: A historical and theoretical
reflection on collectivist and individualist societies. Journal of political economy, 912-950.
Harms, P.D., Spain, Seth M., & Hannah, Sean T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of
personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 495-509.
Hausmann, N., Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., & Spiess, S. (2013). An Investigation of the Relationships
between Affective Organizational Commitment and National Differences in Positivity and Life
Satisfaction. Applied Psychology, 62(2), 260-285.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-
component model. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 474.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills.
Higgs, M. (2009). The good, the bad and the ugly: Leadership and narcissism.Journal of change
management, 9(2), 165-178.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of general
psychology, 9(2), 169.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of management review, 25(1), 121-140.

49
Ingo Zettler, Niklas Friedrich, & Benjamin E. Hilbig. (2011). Dissecting work commitment: The role
of Machiavellianism. Career Development International, 16(1), 20-35.
Ioannis Nikolaou & Ioannis Tsaousis. (2002). Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace & colon;
Exploring its Effects on Occupational Stress and Organizational Commitment. The International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), 327-342.
Jaros, S., Jermier, J., Koehler, J., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of Continuance, Affective, and Moral
Commitment on the Withdrawal Process: An Evaluation of Eight Structural Equation Models. The
Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 951-995.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark
triad. Psychological assessment, 22(2), 420.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 86(1), 80.
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: relationship of the
narcissistic personality to self-and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task
and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A
core evaluations approach. RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL 19, 1997, 19,
151-188.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and
life satisfaction: the role of core evaluations.Journal of applied psychology, 83(1), 17.

50
Judge, T., Bono, J., Locke, E., & Murphy, Kevin R. (2000). Personality and Job Satisfaction: The
Mediating Role of Job Characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237-249.
Judge, T., Erez, A., Bono, J., & Thoresen, C. (2003). THE CORE SELF‐EVALUATIONS SCALE:
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331.
Kilduff, M., Chiaburu, D. S., & Menges, J. I. (2010). Strategic use of emotional intelligence in
organizational settings: Exploring the dark side. Research in organizational behavior, 30, 129-
152.
Kittinger, J. D., Walker, A. G., Cope, J. G., & Wuensch, K. L. (2009). The relationship between core
self-evaluations and affective commitment. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 11(1), 68-92.
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The
assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational behavior
and human decision processes, 85(1), 32-55.
Kluemper, D. (2008). Trait emotional intelligence: The impact of core-self evaluations and social
desirability. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(6), 1402-1412.
Kosteas, V. D. (2011). Job satisfaction and promotions. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy
and Society, 50(1), 174-194.
Kutcher, E., Bragger, J., Rodriguez-Srednicki, J., & Masco, D. (2010). The Role of Religiosity in
Stress, Job Attitudes, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2),
319-337.
Lam, S. S., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). The role of locus of control in reactions to being promoted and
to being passed over: A quasi experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 66-78.

51
Leong, C. S., Furnham, A., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). The moderating effect of organizational
commitment on the occupational stress outcome relationship.Human relations, 49(10), 1345-1363.
Luthans, F., Zhu, W., & Avolio, B. J. (2006). The impact of efficacy on work attitudes across
cultures. Journal of World Business, 41(2), 121-132.
Markovits, Yannis, Boer, Diana, & Van Dick, Rolf. (2013). Economic crisis and the employee: The
effects of economic crisis on employee job satisfaction, commitment, and self-
regulation. European Management Journal, 32(3), 413-422.
Markovits, Y., Davis, A. J., & Van Dick, R. (2007). Organizational commitment profiles and job
satisfaction among Greek private and public sector employees.International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 7(1), 77-99.
Mathieu, C. (2013). Personality and job satisfaction: The role of narcissism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 55(6), 650-654.
Meyer, J., Becker, T., & Van Dick, R. (2007). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward an
integrative model. In Human Resources Abstracts (Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 665).
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and
implications. Psychological inquiry, 197-215.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: a
conceptual analysis and integrative model.Journal of applied psychology, 89(6), 991.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general
model. Human resource management review, 11(3), 299-326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences. Journal of vocational behavior, 61(1), 20-52.

52
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The
nature and implication of commitment profiles.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 1-16.
Meyer, John P., & Maltin, Elyse R. (2010). Employee Commitment and Well-Being: A Critical
Review, Theoretical Framework and Research Agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2),
323-337.
Meyer, John P., & Parfyonova, Natalya M. (2010). Normative commitment in the workplace: A
theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 20(4), 283-
294.
Meyer, John P., Stanley, David J., Jackson, Timothy A., McInnis, Kate J., Maltin, Elyse R., &
Sheppard, Leah. (2012). Affective, normative, and continuance commitment levels across
cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 225-245.
Meyer, John P., Stanley, David J., Herscovitch, Lynne, & Topolnytsky, Laryssa. (2002). Affective,
Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents,
Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52.
Montasem, A., Brown, S., & Harris, R. (2013). Do core self‐evaluations and trait emotional
intelligence predict subjective well‐being in dental students? Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 43(5), 1097-1103.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of applied
psychology, 76(6), 845.

53
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference
predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of organizational behavior, 16(2), 127-
142.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247.
Ng, Twh, Sorensen, Kl, & Eby, Lt. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis. 27(8), 1057-
1087.
O'Boyle, E., Forsyth, D., Banks, G., McDaniel, M., & Kozlowski, Steve W. J. (2012). A Meta-
Analysis of the Dark Triad and Work Behavior: A Social Exchange Perspective.Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557-579.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of
applied psychology, 71(3), 492.
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of management
journal, 34(3), 487-516.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism:
evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological bulletin, 128(1), 3.
Paulhus, Delroy L, & Williams, Kevin M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality,36(6), 556-563.
Penley, L., & Gould, S. (1988). Etzioni's model of organizational involvement: A perspective for
understanding commitment to organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(1), 43-59.

54
Penney, L. J., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger
egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of selection and Assessment, 10, 126-134.
Petrides, K., Perez-Gonzalez, J., Furnham, A., & Carlos Perez-Gonzalez, K. (2007). On the criterion
and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Cognition & Emotion, 21(1), 26-55.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral validation in two
studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European journal of
personality, 17(1), 39-57.
Petrides, K., Vernon, P., Schermer, J., & Veselka, L. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence and the
dark triad traits of personality. Twin Research and Human Genetics: The Official Journal of the
International Society for Twin Studies, 14(1), 35-41.
Pierce, Jon L., & Gardner, Donald G. (2004). Self-Esteem within the Work and Organizational
Context: A Review of the Organization-Based Self-Esteem Literature.Journal of
Management, 30(5), 591-622.
Pitt, L., Foreman, S., & Bromfield, D. (1995). Organizational commitment and service delivery:
Evidence from an industrial setting in the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 6(2), 369-389.
Randall, D. (1993). Cross-cultural research on organizational commitment: A review and application
of Hofstede's Value Survey Module. Journal of Business Research,26(1), 91-110.
Rauthmann, John F., & Kolar, Gerald P. (2012). How “dark” are the Dark Triad traits? Examining
the perceived darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.Personality and
Individual Differences, 53(7), 884-889.

55
Rayton, B. A. (2006). Examining the interconnection of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment: An application of the bivariate probit model. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 17(1), 139-154.
Resick, C., Whitman, D., Weingarden, S., Hiller, N., & Kozlowski, Steve W. J. (2009). The Bright-
Side and the Dark-Side of CEO Personality: Examining Core Self-Evaluations, Narcissism,
Transformational Leadership, and Strategic Influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6),
1365-1381.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job
performance. Academy of management journal,53(3), 617-635.
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of organizational behavior.
Ronald Fischer, & Angela Mansell. (2009). Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical
approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1339.
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for
organizational research: A best-practices approach.Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 169-
215.
Shavelson, R. J. (2004). Editor's Preface to Lee J. Cronbach's" My Current Thoughts on Coefficient
Alpha and Successor Procedures".
Shore, L. M., & Martin, H. J. (1989). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in relation to
work performance and turnover intentions. Human relations, 42(7), 625-638.
Sidani, S., Guruge, S., Miranda, J., Ford‐Gilboe, M., & Varcoe, C. (2010). Cultural adaptation and
translation of measures: An integrated method. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(2), 133-143.

56
Sikorska-Simmons, E. (2005). Religiosity and Work-Related Attitudes among Paraprofessional and
Professional Staff in Assisted Living. Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging, 18(1), 65-82.
Solinger, O., Olffen, W., Roe, R., & Zedeck, Sheldon. (2008). Beyond the Three-Component Model
of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology,93(1), 70-83.
Somers, M. (2009). The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative commitment on
employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 75-81.
Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of
direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(1), 49-58.
Spain, S., Harms, P., & LeBreton, J. (2014). The dark side of personality at work.Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S41-S60.
Stumpp, T., Hülsheger, U. R., Muck, P. M., & Maier, G. W. (2009). Expanding the link between core
self-evaluations and affective job attitudes. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 18(2), 148-166.
Sun, P., Wang, S., & Kong, F. (2014). Core Self-evaluations as Mediator and Moderator of the
Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Life Satisfaction. Social Indicators
Research, 118(1), 173-180.
Susan Y. McGorry. (2000). Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: Survey translation
issues. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 74-81.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention,
and turnover: path analyses based on meta‐analytic findings. Personnel psychology, 46(2), 259-
293.

57
Thomas, J., Whitman, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A
comparative meta‐analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 275-300.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational
commitment: self‐definition, social exchange, and job attitudes.Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(5), 571-584.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance
literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational
research. Organizational research methods, 3(1), 4-70.
Wang, Q., Bowling, N., Eschleman, K., & Kozlowski, Steve W. J. (2010). A Meta-Analytic
Examination of Work and General Locus of Control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 761-
768.
Yiing, L. H., & Ahmad, K. Z. B. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational culture on the
relationships between leadership behavior and organizational commitment and between
organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 30(1), 53-86.
Yoon, Jeongkoo, & Thye, Shane R. (2002). A Dual Process Model of Organizational Commitment:
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Support. Work and Occupations: An International
Sociological Journal, 29(1), 97-124.

58
Appendix A
Descriptive Statistics
Independent Samples Test
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference Lower Upper
CSE Equal variances
assumed ,099 ,753 -3,471 371 ,001 -,29409 ,08472 -,46068
-
,12750
Equal variances not
assumed -3,461 355,294 ,001 -,29409 ,08496 -,46119
-
,12700
DSP Equal variances
assumed ,760 ,384 ,888 371 ,375 ,08407 ,09463 -,10201 ,27015
Equal variances not
assumed ,892 364,132 ,373 ,08407 ,09429 -,10135 ,26949
EI Equal variances
assumed ,172 ,679 -4,790 371 ,000 -,33677 ,07031 -,47503
-
,19851
Equal variances not
assumed -4,809 364,663 ,000 -,33677 ,07002 -,47447
-
,19907
OC Equal variances
assumed 7,33 ,007 5,595 371 ,000 ,27104 ,04844 ,17578 ,36629
Equal variances not
assumed 5,744 365,350 ,000 ,27104 ,04719 ,17824 ,36383
LOC Equal variances
assumed ,264 ,608 -4,099 371 ,000 -,46417 ,11323 -,68683
-
,24151
Equal variances not
assumed -4,087 354,978 ,000 -,46417 ,11358 -,68755
-
,24080
EST Equal variances
assumed 2,75 ,098 -2,304 371 ,022 -,25845 ,11219 -,47905
-
,03784
Equal variances not
assumed -2,326 369,321 ,021 -,25845 ,11110 -,47691
-
,03998
SEF Equal variances
assumed 3,74 ,054 -5,114 371 ,000 -,41537 ,08122 -,57509
-
,25565
Equal variances not
assumed -5,089 352,127 ,000 -,41537 ,08161 -,57588
-
,25486
SEE Equal variances
assumed ,395 ,530 -,324 371 ,746 -,03839 ,11843 -,27127 ,19450
Equal variances not
assumed -,325 362,933 ,745 -,03839 ,11813 -,27069 ,19392
N Equal variances
assumed 8,25 ,004 ,288 371 ,774 ,03734 ,12969 -,21769 ,29236
Equal variances not
assumed ,292 370,695 ,771 ,03734 ,12800 -,21436 ,28904
P Equal variances
assumed 2,06 ,152 -1,779 371 ,076 -,19426 ,10922 -,40903 ,02050
Equal variances not
assumed -1,796 369,351 ,073 -,19426 ,10815 -,40694 ,01841
M Equal variances
assumed 2,05 ,153 3,733 371 ,000 ,52480 ,14058 ,24838 ,80123

59
Equal variances not
assumed 3,704 346,667 ,000 ,52480 ,14168 ,24615 ,80346
AOC Equal variances
assumed 1,14 ,285 1,541 371 ,124 ,17153 ,11130 -,04732 ,39038
Equal variances not
assumed 1,544 361,735 ,124 ,17153 ,11112 -,04699 ,39005
NOC Equal variances
assumed 4,26 ,040 4,765 371 ,000 ,44322 ,09302 ,26031 ,62614
Equal variances not
assumed 4,823 370,391 ,000 ,44322 ,09190 ,26251 ,62394
COC Equal variances
assumed 3,50 ,062 8,637 371 ,000 ,88842 ,10287 ,68615 1,0907
Equal variances not
assumed 8,783 370,926 ,000 ,88842 ,10115 ,68953 1,0873
CSE, core self evaluations; DSP, dark side of personality; EI, emotional intelligence; OC,
organizational commitment; AOC, affective organizational commitment; NOC, normative
organizational commitment; COC, continuance organizational commitment.
Independent Samples Test
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Differen
ce
Std.
Error
Differen
ce Lower Upper
Pride Equal variances
assumed
3,942 ,048 1,349 371 ,178 ,178 ,132 -,081 ,436
Equal variances
not assumed
1,335 341,923 ,183 ,178 ,133 -,084 ,439
Fairness Equal variances
assumed
2,790 ,096 1,977 371 ,049 ,306 ,155 ,002 ,611
Equal variances
not assumed
1,960 344,888 ,051 ,306 ,156 -,001 ,614
Religiousness Equal variances
assumed
,536 ,465 4,148 371 ,000 ,739 ,178 ,389 1,090
Equal variances
not assumed
4,138 355,994 ,000 ,739 ,179 ,388 1,091
Political
perspectives
Equal variances
assumed
2,083 ,150 1,226 371 ,221 ,175 ,142 -,105 ,455
Equal variances
not assumed
1,231 364,303 ,219 ,175 ,142 -,104 ,454

DISSERTATION

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to DISSERTATION

Similar to DISSERTATION (20)

DISSERTATION