University of Amsterdam
Rule by Fear or Respect?
An Explanatory Study of the Relationship between a Dominance-based or Prestige-based Leadership Style, Gossip and Well-being while taking in consideration the Perceived External Threat
Msc Business administration
specialization: leadership and management
author: Helena C.M. (Olga) Abelmann student number: 11230797
Thesis supervisor: dr. R.D. (Richard) Ronay Version: final version
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Helena C.M. (Olga) Abelmann who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
This research examines the effect of two leadership styles, namely dominance-based and prestige-based leadership style, on the level of negative gossip about the leader and whether that relationship would be mediated by employee well-being, and moderated by perceived external threat. Based on current literature, several hypotheses were formulated, and a conceptual model was constructed. Thereafter, cross-sectional data was collected via an online survey which was distributed using LinkedIn in order to test the proposed model via PROCESS analysis. The results of the analysis showed that both leadership styles had a significant relationship with gossip. However, the relationship between the leadership styles and gossip was not mediated by well-being. The prestige-based leadership style did have a significant relationship with well-being, but well-being did not mediate the relationship with gossip. For dominance-based leadership style the relationship with well-being was not significant. Also, the results did not show a moderating effect for perceived external threat. Theoretical and practical implications as well as limitations and future directions for further research are discussed.
Key words: leadership, dominance, prestige, gossip, well-being, perceived external threat Direction?
Table of Contents
List of figures and tables ... 6
Index of appendices... 6
1. Introduction ... 7
2. Literature review ... 10
2.1. Leadership ... 10
2.1.1. Dominance-based leadership style ... 11
2.1.2. Prestige based leadership... 12
2.2. Gossip ... 13
2.3. Well-being ... 15
2.4. Perceived external threat ... 17
3. Conceptual model ... 19
4. Methods ... 19
4.1. Research design ... 19
4.2. Data collection and sampling technique ... 19
4.3. Measures ... 21
4.3.1. The independent variables ... 21
4.3.2. The dependent variable ... 22
4.3.3. The mediator... 22
4.3.4. The moderator ... 23
5. Results ... 23
5.1. Preliminary analysis and data screening ... 24
5.1.1. Recoding ... 24 5.1.2. Normality test ... 24 5.1.3. Z-scores/ outliers ... 25 5.1.4. Scale means ... 25 5.2. Descriptive statistics ... 25 5.3. Regression analyses ... 26 5.3.1. Direct relation ... 26 5.3.2. Mediation... 28 5.3.3. Moderated mediation ... 31 6. Discussion ... 33 6.1. Theoretical implications ... 33 6.2. Practical implications ... 37 6.3. Limitations... 38 6.4. Future directions ... 39 7. Conclusion ... 40 Reference list ... 41 Appendix... 49
List of figures and tables
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Table 1: Means, standard deviations and correlations
Table 2: Hierarchical regression model for dominance-based leadership and gossip Table 3: Hierarchical regression model for prestige-based leadership and gossip Table 4: Hierarchical regression model for both leadership styles and gossip
Table 5: Results of mediation analysis using PROCESS (model 4) for dominance-based leadership style
Table 6: Results of mediation analysis using PROCESS (model 4) for prestige-based leadership style
Table 7: Results of moderated mediation analysis using PROCESS (model 7) for dominance-based leadership style
Table 8: Results of moderated mediation analysis using PROCESS (model 7) for prestige-based leadership style
Index of appendices
1. Introduction
Evolutionary history has taught us that human groups are structured hierarchically (Boyd & Richerson, 2005; Maner & Case, 2016), meaning that within the social structure of a group certain members obtain a higher rank than others. Possessing a higher rank enables those group members to influence others and to have privileged access to and control over
resources. Therefore, people strive to gain such higher-ranking or leadership position within the social structures they inhabit (Maner & Case, 2016). Dominance and prestige have been identified as two viable pathways to obtain a higher rank and to gain social influence and control. With a leadership style based on dominance, the leader gains this higher social rank by creating fear (physical and/or psychological) amongst group members (Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich, 2013). With a leadership style based on prestige the leader gains their higher social position not by withholding resources and creating fear, but because they are “recognized and respected for their skills, success, or knowledge” (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010, p. 335). The research on these two leadership styles, dominance-based leadership style and prestige-based leadership is limited within the organizational literature, therefore this research will expand the knowledge.
As these two leadership styles differ in their approach to influencing others, it is very likely that they also differ with regard to their effects upon group members. Biological studies give some insights into the effects. But even though there are similarities between humans and non-humans there is one important element that differs and that is language. Humans have the capacity to learn about their social surrounding without being there. Primates are constrained in their knowledge about their groups because they lack language; they only know what they see themselves (Dunbar, 2004). Therefore, the effect of leadership style in organizations will be measured by gossip as this is “informal and evaluative talk in an organization about another member of that organization who is not present” (Kurland &
Pelled, 2000, p. 429). Prior research has shown that group members tend to discuss their situation (e.g. their position in the group or how they relate to the leader) with others who are in a similar situation. This as gossiping is an essential way for them to gain information about how to function within a certain social structure (Foster, 2004). The goal of this research is to examine whether there is a difference in gossiping about leaders who have a dominance-based leadership style versus leaders with a prestige-based leadership style. As the dominance-based leadership style is about creating physical and/or psychological fear (Maner, 2017), it is plausible that this leadership style will lead to more negative gossiping amongst group members as they will talk more together in order to find ways how to deal with the leader, as well as for mutual support. The current research will therefore focus on negative gossip in relation to dominance- versus prestige-based leaders.
As a leadership style is one of the main influences on an employees’ well-being (Munir & Nielsen, 2009; Sparks, Faragher, & Cooper, 2001), the element of well-being is also included in the research. Prior research has shown a relationship between well-being and leadership styles. For instance, a positive relationship was found between the well-being of employees and transformational leadership (van Dierendonck, Haynes, Borrill, & Stride, 2004), between well-being and ethical leadership (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012) and between well-being and authentic leadership (Rahimnia & Sharifirad, 2015). However, a negative relationship was established between the well-being of an employee and abusive supervision (Lin, Wang, & Chen, 2013; Mathieu, Neumann, Hare, & Babiak, 2014; Tepper, 2000) and between well-being and destructive managerial leadership (Nyberg, Holmberg, Bernin, & Alderling, 2011). To date there is no research on the existence of a relationship between well-being and dominance-based and/or prestige-based leadership style. Therefore, the results of this research will increase the existing knowledge. It is expected that a dominance-based leadership style will lead to decreased overall well-being, specifically: increased work-related
stress, decreased job satisfaction and decreased subjective happiness. One way employees might deal with this predicted decline in their well-being, is by discussing their situation with others in the same situation, resulting in an increase in gossiping for employees who have a leader with a dominance-based leadership style. Meaning that well-being should mediate the relationship between dominance-based leadership style and gossip.
The last element in this research is a contextual one, namely perceptions of external threats to the company. The reason for adding a contextual element is because the context influences the effectiveness of a leadership style (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2005). There are situations in which a certain leadership style is more effective than another. For example, within a dangerous situation a leadership style where reaching consensus between team members is the key element is less effective than a more directive leadership style (Campbell, 2012). As employees benefit from this more effective leadership style they – although it influences their well-being in a negative way – might prefer that leadership style. This could also be the case for dominance-based leadership style. Previous research has found that in threatening situations, people prefer a dominant leader, someone who takes charge (Maner, 2017; Van Vugt & Grabo, 2015). Therefore, employees who perceive a high threat in the business environment in which their company operates, might feel better when they have a leader who has a more dominance-based leadership style. Therefore, the perceived external threat might influence the degree to which dominance-based and prestige-based leadership styles are impacting well-being and gossiping.
Based on all these elements the following research question arises: Does well-being
mediate the relationship between leadership style (dominance and prestige based) and gossip and is this relationship moderated by perceived external threat?
2. Literature review
2.1. Leadership
Throughout most of evolutionary history, humans have been living in groups with a hierarchical structure consisting of leaders and followers (Boyd & Richerson, 2005; Van Vugt, 2006). This social hierarchy means that certain group members have a higher rank than others. Possessing a higher rank enables certain group members to influence others, have access to or control the resources. This brings them benefits such as: being more respected than others in the groups, having more resources like food and potential mates and having influence over others in order to satisfy their own needs (Maner & Case, 2016). Therefore, gaining a higher-ranking position within the social structure is something people strive for (Maner & Case, 2016). Also, having a high status or rank in many human societies is related to leadership (Bass, 1990). However, only having a high rank does not necessarily imply leadership and that a person is a leader (Jago, 1982). Shaughnessy et al., (2017) described how an informal leader gains the status of leader via interaction with his/her peers. Therefore, it is important to remember that the rank or status of leader does not exist without followers (Cheng et al., 2013). As long as there is a payoff for the follower, such as access to water, food or security the follower is better off with a leader than alone. Even though this means that the leader is better of the follower (Van Vugt, 2006). For gaining a higher rank or status, (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001) identity two clear routes, namely dominance and prestige. Also, Maner & Mead (2010) consider dominance and prestige as two viable strategies that are characteristic for the use of power within groups with a hierarchal structure. The description of these leadership styles based on the two strategies, dominance-based and prestige-based leadership, are as follows.
2.1.1. Dominance-based leadership style
Phylogenetically seen dominance is an ancient strategy used in group-living species (Maner, 2017). When researching this strategy it can be useful to look at biological studies to see how animals improve their position within their social groups (King, Johnson, & Van Vugt, 2009). These studies show that some species determine their social rank on the basis of dominant behavior and agonistic encounters (Cheng et al., 2010). Wolves, zebras and gorillas are well cited examples (King et al., 2009). But a more appealing example of dominance-based leadership from the world of animals is leadership within groups of chimpanzee as they are one of the nearest extant relatives to humans (De Waal, 1999). Within chimpanzee groups the social hierarchy ladder is determined by who is the strongest (Maner, 2017). Strong male chimpanzees gain the status of leader via violent and forceful physical contact. In order to keep this position, he intimidates group members in such a way that they fear him enough that they will not challenge this leadership status (De Waal, 1999). So being the strongest and most dominating brings him to a higher, more attractive position within the group. With this position, he has the right to mate with all the females in the group and he can claim the largest portion of food. With this dominance-based leadership style he obtains and maintains his social position.
Many humans also use a dominance-based strategy to obtain and protect their social rank (Maner & Case, 2016). Evolutionary history show that humans organized themselves in small hunting-gathering group with a certain hierarchy (Boyd & Richerson, 2005). This hierarchy is not institutionalized but there is always an individual that takes a central role (Boehm, 1999). In many cases this individual is a physically strong, warrior-like figure (Van Vugt, 2006). This can be explained by fact that humans and chimpanzee are closely related and humans inherited the proclivity for dominant behavior (Van Vugt, 2006). The dominance-based strategy of humans can involve physical contact as well as the controlling of the access
to certain resources, companions and well-being (Cheng et al., 2013; De Waal-Andrews, Gregg, & Lammers, 2015). They create physical and psychological fear amongst group members (Kakkar & Sivanathan, 2017). As the rank of leader only exits when there are followers (Cheng et al., 2013), the very essential social support for their leadership position is forced (Maner & Case, 2016).
2.1.2. Prestige based leadership
In contrast to dominance-based leadership style, prestige-based leaders gain their social status not by withholding resources nor by creating fear but because they “are recognized and respected for their skills, success, or knowledge” (Cheng et al., 2010, p. 335). Therefore, it’s the followers that grant them the higher rank and leadership status; they freely decide to follow this person. Again, a good example comes from the biological study, in this case the study of elephants. The other elephants follow their leader as she has the knowledge of the routes to the locations of food and water (Price & Van Vugt, 2014). The group recognizes and respects this knowledge and so follow her (Ronay, Maddux, & von Hippel, 2018).
In humans this prestige-based leadership style ascended when people came to understand that there were alternative routes to gaining higher status then strengths alone. They came to realize that also having desirable skills or knowledge could provide a higher status within the group (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). So followers decided to provide offers like food, mates and support to a person in return for the knowledge from this prestigious person regarding skills, strategies and know-how (Cheng et al., 2010). The prestige-based leadership style is more reciprocal than a dominance-based leadership style and it works best if the power distance between the leader and the follower is small (Van Vugt & Tybur, 2014). The hierarchy within ancestral human groups was relatively flat and therefore characterized more by prestige than dominance (Boehmn, 1999). Members of those groups realized that by
becoming a role model for other group members because of their special skills or knowledge could lead to a better position in the social hierarchy. What exactly is considered to be special differs across groups and cultures (Maner, 2017). One could therefore say that prestige “lies in the eye of the beholder” (Maner & Case, 2016, p. 138). Nowadays, the prestigious person can also be a person outside one’s own current social group, for example a celebrity or a sport person (Henrich, Chudek, & Boyd, 2015).
2.2. Gossip
Besides similarities between humans and non-humans, there is one major element that differs and that is language. Primates learn about their social surrounding and what is socially
acceptable within the group by grooming each other (Dunbar, 2004). Also, they learn through observation, learning by seeing (Dunbar, 2004).
The case is different for humans. They have the ability to gain information about how to behave within a certain social context by using language. This way they can gain
information about situations when they’re not physically present (Emler, 1990). This exchange of information is essential to function in a social environment (Foster, 2004). As soon as the exchange of information is no longer solely about social facts, for example who has a new job or a new house, and contains a negative or positive evaluation it becomes gossip (Foster, 2004).
The manifestation of gossip can be positive such as giving compliments, but more often it is intended negatively for example to derogate another person (Turner, Mazur, Wendel & Winslow, 2004). Gossiping can possibly destroy reputations, ruin careers and poison relationships (Westen, 1996). Therefore, “gossip is often seen as exclusively self-serving behavior aimed at manipulating others and influencing them in some malicious way” (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012, p. 2641). However, that gossiping is not only self-serving
behavior becomes clear from the following four motives that were identified for gossip: negative influencing, information gathering (and validation), social enjoyment and group protection (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012). In spite of the fact that not all of these motives have the intention to harm, in almost all cultures and societies gossip is condemned (Telfer, Goodman, & Ben-Ze’Ev, 1996). Most likely this is because in the majority of cases the subject of the conversation is not present, which can lead to poor relationships amongst group members (Wittek & Wielers, 1998). Research has shown that gossip flourishes mainly in social networks where bad relationships amongst certain group members are found (Enquist & Leimar, 1993). Therefore, gossip can be seen as an indicator of the functioning of a social network. A poorly functioning social network caused by gossiping can have negative
consequences for a group, for example people leaving or being less productive.
Gossip can have an immense impact on the performance of a group or an organization (Difonzo, Bordia, & Rosnow, 1994). Therefore, both from a theoretical point of view as well as from an organizational point of view knowing how gossip is affected by a leadership style can be valuable. With the information about the two leadership styles in this research,
dominance-based and prestige-based, it is expected that they both differ in their effect on their followers and therefore the functioning of the social network. More precisely, it is expected that group members with a leader who has a dominance-based leadership style will speak negatively about this leader and his leadership style. A leader with a dominance-based leadership style gains control by creating physical and/or psychological fear amongst group members (Kakkar & Sivanathan, 2017). Therefore, this will create negative experiences for the team members. When employees experience the negative behavior of their leader, they will retroact in a negative way, for example by engaging in gossiping behavior (Decoster, Camps, Stouten, Vandevyvere, & Tripp, 2013). This leads to the first hypothesis:
As the prestige-based leadership style does not contain the negative elements such as creating fear which results in gossiping, the second hypothesis contrasts with the first, namely:
H1b: Prestige-based leadership will be negatively related to negative gossip.
2.3. Well-being
Well-being is a very broad concept and, on that account, difficult to restrict to just one term. Scholars use the term well-being as an umbrella term (Wright & Huang, 2012) and it
therefore can contain many aspects. Some scholars combined well-being with health, in which they distinguish two main streams (Danna & Griffin, 1999). The first is defined by “physical symptomatology and epidemiology rates of physical illness or disease” (Danna & Griffin, 1999, p. 361). The focus in this main stream is on the physical side of well-being; how well the body is doing. Within the second stream, well-being is referred to as “mental,
psychological or emotional aspects“ (Danna & Griffin, 1999, p. 361). And in this second main stream it is argued that well-being is a reflection of the emotional experiences of a person which is illustrated by how this person would describe his own happiness (Diener, 1984).
Being aware of the emotional well-being of employees is important as it might influence their job related well-being (Warr, 1990) such as their job satisfaction (e.g. Fisher, 2010; Gilbreath & Benson, 2004; Mathieu et al., 2014), their level of work-related stress (e.g. Gilbreath & Benson, 2004; Tepper, 2000) and therefore the organization’s performance. Several studies have shown that leadership style is one of the main influences on an
employees’ well-being (Munir & Nielsen, 2009; Sparks et al., 2001). For instance, a positive relationship was found between the well-being of employees and transformational leadership (van Dierendonck et al., 2004), between well-being and ethical leadership (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012) and between well-being and authentic leadership (Rahimnia & Sharifirad, 2015). However, a negative relationship was established between the well-being of an employee and
abusive supervision (Lin et al., 2013; Mathieu et al., 2014; Tepper, 2000) and between well-being and destructive managerial leadership (Nyberg et al., 2011). Thus, the leadership style can either be a positive or negative influence on an employees’ well-being.
To my knowledge, no research has been done on the existence of a relationship between well-being and dominance-based and/or prestige-based leadership style. Therefore, the results of this research will improve the existing knowledge about the influence of a leadership style in general and more specifically the role of dominance-based and prestige-based leadership style on the well-being of an employee. Even though the negative elements of the dominance-based leadership style stand out the most, this leadership style also gives clarity, and research has shown that clarity is better for the well-being (Parker, Chmiel, & Wall, 1997). However, because of the physical and psychological impacts it is more likely that a dominance-based leadership style will lead to decreased overall well-being. Moreover, recent studies have shown that leaders who are highly dominant will sacrifice the well-being of the group in order to maintain their power (Maner, 2017). To these leaders, the well-being of the employee is considered less important. This contrasts with the behavior of a leader with a prestige-based leadership style. Leaders with a prestige-based leadership style encourage group members to have strong, positive relationship with other group members (Case & Maner, 2014). Also, they give a higher priority to the well-being of the group and the group members (Henrich, Chudek, & Boyd, 2015). This leads me to the following hypotheses: H2a: Dominance-based leadership style will be negatively related to employee well-being.
As described previously people tend to gossip as the exchange of information is essential for them to function in a social environment (Foster, 2004). When employees experience a decline in their well-being caused by the dominance-based leadership style of their leader, they might discuss their feelings and experiences with others in the same situation. They do this in order to gain information about how to deal with it, with a view to improving their well-being. Hence, it is expected that well-being should mediate the relationship between the leadership styles and negative gossip.
H3a: The positive relationship between dominance-based leadership style and negative
gossip will be mediated by employee well-being.
H3b: The negative relationship between prestige-based leadership style and negative gossip
will be mediated by employee well-being.
2.4. Perceived external threat
The last element in this research is a contextual one, namely the external threat as is perceived by the employees of the company. Research has shown that the effectiveness of a leadership style depends on the context (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2005). The situation may present itself where followers desire a dominance-based leadership style (despite the negative
consequences it may have on their well-being) as in that context that leadership style is more effective, it will therefore benefit them in the long run. The idea of considering the context when exploring the concept of leadership has been a request from leadership researchers in the last twenty years (Hannah, Uhl-Bien, Avolio, & Cavarretta, 2009). This is due to the slow realization that leadership does not exist in a vacuum but that also the context in which the leadership style occurs is important (House & Aditya, 1997; Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 2002). In addition, the context might explain certain surprising findings in leadership research (Johns,
2006). For example the fact that a negative relationship between well-being and leadership styles with dominant characteristics such as abusive supervision (Lin et al., 2013; Mathieu et al., 2014; Tepper, 2000) and destructive managerial leadership. On the other hand, there is research that shows people sometimes prefer a dominant leader (a person who takes charge ) in situations with a high threat (Maner, 2017; Van Vugt & Grabo, 2015). As perceived threat becomes too much for followers to handle alone, they will focus on the leader for action (Gladstein & Reilly, 1985; Isenberg, 1981).
For most followers, a business environment that constantly changes, with business opportunities at one moment and business threats in the next, is a lot to take in. Therefore, the perceived external threat might influence the degree to which dominance-based and prestige-based leadership styles are impacting well-being. More precisely, a leader with a dominance-based leadership style who tells followers where to go or what to do in a context that is perceived as threatening might impact the relationship with well-being in a positive way so that the negative relationship between dominance-based leadership style and well-being becomes positive. Thus, perceived external threat might moderate the relationship between the leadership styles and well-being. This brings me to the last two hypotheses:
H4a: The negative relationship between dominance-based leadership style and employee
well-being will be moderated by perceived external threat, such that this relationship becomes positive when the perceived threat is high.
H4b: The positive relationship between prestige-based leadership style and employee
well-being will be moderated by perceived threat, such that the relationship will remain significant but become less strong when the perceived threat is high.
3. Conceptual model
Figure 1: conceptual model
4. Methods
In the next section the full research execution is presented. The research design, the procedure, sample and the measures used are explained.
4.1. Research design
The research is explanatory in nature as the aim of this research is to investigate whether there is a relationship between a leadership style (either dominance-based or prestige based) and the level of gossip about the leader who uses this leadership style. Besides that, also how the well-being of the employee mediates this relationship, and to find out if this relationship is moderated by a perceived external threat. Based on existing literature several hypotheses were formulated, as were visualized in the conceptual model in chapter 3.
4.2. Data collection and sampling technique
To test the hypotheses in this thesis, cross-sectional data was collected via an online survey, which was been made using Qualtrics. The items within the questionnaire came from English
sources and therefore needed to be translated. This was done via parallel translation by two independent translators. For a few items they differed in their translation, for those items the opinion of a third independent translator was decisive.
Via a LinkedIn message which was posted on the 2nd of April 2018, people were
invited to participate in an anonymous survey for a master thesis. Via LinkedIn, different groups of people, i.e. men and women from different ages and with different educational backgrounds could be reached within a limited timeframe (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The posted message contained a link to the survey. When clicking on the link people were redirected to the survey which started with an introduction in which the reason for this
research was explained as well as the effect of their participation, the duration and deadline of the survey, and who to contact in case of questions or technical difficulties. The use of a message on LinkedIn is a form of a non-probability sampling technique. In addition, as it is the decision of the people whether to participate or not, this is seen as self-selection
(Saunders, 2011). Also, as the posted message was “liked” and “shared”, people who could not see the original posted message were reached. This form of sampling is known as snowball technique. By this snowball technique, potentially the population for this research was every person with a LinkedIn account. Therefore, the population size is unknown. The sampling size will be the group of respondents who completed the whole survey before the closing deadline (April 12, 2018). After this deadline, the collected data in Qualtrics was downloaded into IBM SPSS.
In the raw dataset it appeared that 134 people filled out the survey, however further investigation revealed that with 29 surveys nothing was filled in. It seems that with those 29 surveys the person just clicked on the survey link and then dropped out. These 29 surveys were therefore deleted leaving a remaining data set of 105 completed surveys. As this research is about the impact of a leadership style on the level of the gossip about the leader
and the well-being of employees, only employee (and not leaders) are included in the
research. Therefore, if the first question in the questionnaire “in your current job do you have a formal leader position?” was answered with ‘yes’, this survey had to be deleted. This was the case for seven surveys, bringing the total of the dataset up to 98. From this group of 98 respondents, 45 respondents are male (46%) and 53 respondents are female (54%). Their average age is 39 years (SD = 9.21) and their average job tenure is 6,33 years (SD = 6.41).
4.3. Measures
The conceptual model contained two independent variables, a dependent variable, a mediator and a moderator. This section describes the measurements of each variable.
4.3.1. The independent variables
Dominance-based leadership style is measured using the 10-item dominance scale from
Cheng et al., (2010). It uses a 7 point likert scale (1= strongly disagree/ 7 = strongly agree). An example item is “He/ she enjoys having control over other (members of the group)”. The Cronbach alpha is .87which proves that there is a high internal consistency. As a generally accepted level of reliability is = .7 (Field, 2013).
Prestige-based leadership style is measured by 10 items of the prestige scales from
Cheng et al., (2010). It uses a 7 point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree/ 7 = strongly agree). Originally, this scale contained 12 items, but 2 questions were deleted to equal the number of items for dominance-based leadership style. This Cronbach alpha for this adjusted scale is = .88. One of the questions is “He/she is considered an expert on some matters by others within the company”.
4.3.2. The dependent variable
Gossip is measured by an adapted version of the tendency to gossip scale by Wittek and Wielers (1998). It contains 11 items and uses a 10 point Likert scale (1 = almost never/ 10 = almost always). One of the question in the original version was “Classmates/Colleagues criticizing uncooperative behavior of an absent person”. The adapted question is “I sometimes criticize the uncooperative behavior of my manager when she/ he is absent”. The reliability is good with α=.89.
4.3.3. The mediator
Well-being is measured by 3 elements of well-being, namely the amount of work-related stress, the level of job satisfaction and the subjective happiness of the respondent.
Work-related stress is measured with a 4-item scale adopted by Nordin, Knutsson, Sundbom,
& Stegmayr (2005). The items could be rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = No, almost never / 4 = Yes, often). An example item is “Is your work psychologically tiring?”.
Job satisfaction is measured with a 4-item scale of Lian, Brown, Tanzer, & Che (2011). The
items could be rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree / 6 = strongly agree). An example statement is “I feel fairly well satisfied with my current job”
Subjective happiness is measured with the 4-items subjective happiness scale of Stein &
Grant (2014). The items could be rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not a very happy person / 7 = a very happy person). An example item is “Some people are generally very happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going on, getting the most out of everything. To what extent does this characterization describe you?”. The Cronbach alpha for the total well-being = .75.
4.3.4. The moderator
Perceived external threat is measured by 4-items of Liu, Chen, & Kittilaksanawong (2013).
The items could be rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = small extent / 7 = great extent). An example item is “Please indicate the extent to which your company: describes the overall business environment as a threat” (= .83).
4.3.5. The control variables
Three control variables, namely gender, age and tenure, are used to exclude alternative
explanations for the results of the analyses and to increase the statistical power of the research (Becker, 2005). The reason for choosing these control variables is that Simona, Shirom, Fried & Cooper (2008) found that age, gender and tenure are known moderator of work-related stress. According to Barbuto, Fritz, Matkin & Marx (2007) gender explains on a significant level differences in the follower’s ratings of leadership behaviors. And as Brush, Moch, & Pooyan (1987) found that age and organizational tenure are correlated with job satisfaction, it seems wise to control the results of the analyses for both. All three variables are measured with single questions “What is your age?”, “What is your gender?” and “How many years have you been working with this company?”.
5. Results
This section describes the steps taken in order to analyze the data and the hypotheses. Starting with the preliminary analysis and data screening and followed by the correlation and
5.1. Preliminary analysis and data screening
5.1.1. Recoding
In the Electronic Supplementary Material belonging to the article by Cheng, Tracy & Henrich (2010) it was stated that 3 items for the dominance-based leadership style (item 3, item 7 and item 9) and 3 items for the prestige-based leadership style (item 3, item 9, item 10) were negatively keyed items. Therefore, they needed to be recoded before analyzing. According to the article for gossip (Wittek & Wielers, 1998b) none of the statements were negatively keyed, but a reliability analysis showed negative numbers for two statements. Contact with one of the writers of the article made clear that the items were not negatively keyed but were about positive gossip. This information let to the decision not to recode but to delete items 1 and 7. As with gossip, the well-being articles also did not mention any negatively keyed items, but the wording of the statements in combination with the outcome of the reliability test gave a strong foundation for recoding the items 4 and 12. Therefore these two items were also recoded.
5.1.2. Normality test
Normality tests (Z-scores, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk) were conducted for all variables. The results indicated normality for most, but a few items had a score marginally outside the normality range of -1 to 1, meaning they were slightly skewed. Skewness can be solved by transformation. However, as the scores are just slightly outside the normality range and because using the wrong transformation code can have an adverse effect in the model, and as bootstrapping will be applied when testing the model, the data is not transformed.
5.1.3. Z-scores/ outliers
Z-scores outside the range of -3.29 and 3.29 (with a probability of less than .1 percent) are considered significant outliers (Field, 2013). None of the variables contained outliers, therefore nothing was removed from the dataset.
5.1.4. Scale means
The different variables had differing scales, in addition the variable well-being even consisted of 3 elements also with different scales. To create equal scales, the Z-scores were used to compute scale means of each variable.
5.2. Descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations and correlations of the 5 variables and the 3 control variables are presented in the table below (table 1). For computing this table, the scale means of the original data was used, not the computed scale means for the z-scores.
As can be seen, the results indicate a positive significant relationship between dominance-based leadership style and prestige-dominance-based leadership style (r = .32, p < .01), between dominance-based leadership style and gossip (r = .41, p < .01), between prestige-based leadership style and well-being (r = .44, p < .01). From the control variables, tenure had a
(r = 33, p < .01). Gender had a positive significant relationship with well-being (r = .23,
p < .05). A negative significant relationship is found for prestige-based leadership style and
gossip (r = .48, p < .01) and for gossip and well-being (r = .37, p < .01). Some of the variables have a correlation coefficient somewhere between -.2 and .2. This indicates that there is marginal to no relationship between those variables. It is likely that the low correlations will have an implication for the results in the regression analysis.
5.3. Regression analyses
5.3.1. Direct relation
To examine the direct relationship between dominance-based leadership (independent variable) and gossip (dependent variable) a hierarchical regression analysis was performed. Table 2 shows the results for dominance-based leadership style. In the first step control variables were entered: tenure, gender and age. This model statistically is not significant (F (3, 94) = .157, p > .05) meaning that these control variables are not a significant explanation for variance in gossip. However, after entering the independent variable, dominance-based leadership style the model does become significant F (1, 93) = 17.43;
p < .001 and it explains 15,7% of the variance in gossip.
For the other independent variable, prestige-based leadership style, a similar hierarchical regression analysis was done with the dependent variable, gossip. Table 3 shows the results for prestige-based leadership style. As the dependent variable and the control variables are the same, model 1 gives the same results as with dominance-based leadership style
F (3, 94) = .157, p > .05. However, when the independent variable, this time prestige-based
leadership style, is entered into the model, it also becomes significant F (1, 93) = 29.01,
p < .001 and it explains 23,7% of the variance in gossip.
Before making any conclusions about the direct relationship between the leadership style and gossip, both independent variables were included in the same hierarchical regression. This was done because of the correlation between dominance-based leadership style and prestige-based leadership style (r = .32, p < .01).
Table 4 shows the results for both leadership styles. Again, the dependent variable and the control variables are the same and the results remain F (3, 94) = .157, p > .05. However, as both independent variables (both the leadership styles) are entered into the model, the model becomes significant F (2, 92) = 20.25, p < .001 and it explains 30,4% of the variance in gossip. As can be seen from table 4 both of the leadership styles are significant, meaning that both leadership styles are independently predictive. All the results presented in tables 2, 3 and 4 show support for the first two hypotheses, namely that dominance-based leadership style is
positively related to negative gossip (H1a) and that prestige-based leadership style is negatively related to negative gossip (H1b).
5.3.2. Mediation
The PROCESS macro for SPSS by Hayes (2013) was used, more specifically model 4, as this allows for testing the mediation of well-being between the independent variable, dominance-based or prestige-dominance-based leadership styles and the dependent variable, gossip. Bootstrapping (5.000 times) was used as this is a nonparametric resampling procedure for testing mediation without assuming a normal sample distribution (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Results for the analysis are shown in table 5 and 6.
The first hypothesis that was tested with this model was H2a “Dominance-based leadership
style will be negatively related to employee well-being”. Results show the following effect of
dominance-based leadership style on well-being a1 = -0.01, 95% CI [-.24, -.05], t = -1.277, p
= .205. The sign of a1 is negative, meaning that those employees who have a leader that is
relatively high in dominance-based leadership style are estimated to be lower in their well-being. But even though the sign of a1 is negative as expected in the hypothesis, the results are
not significant and therefore, there is statistically no support for this hypothesis.
The second hypothesis that was tested with this model was H3a “The relationship
between dominance-based leadership style and negative gossip will be mediated by employee well-being”. The model gives results for the several relationships, like the effect of well-being
on gossip is b1 = -0.466, 95% CI [-.74, -.19], t = -3.340, p = .001. The total effect of
dominance-based leadership style on gossip is c = .435, 95% CI [.23, .64], t = 4.175, p = .000. The positive sign means the person perceiving a greater dominance-based leadership style
from his leader reports higher levels of gossiping. The model also shows the direct effect of dominance-based leadership style c′ = .391, 95% CI [0.19, 0.59], t= 3.921, p = .000.
However, in order to say something about the hypothesis the results for the indirect effect are needed. The indirect effect is 0.045 but unfortunately not significant as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is includes zero (-0.050 to 0.101). Therefore, the indirect effect results do not support hypothesis 3a.
Table 6 gives the results for prestige-based leadership style and the related hypotheses. The first being H2b “Prestige-based leadership style will be positively related to employee
well-being”. Results show the following effect of prestige-based leadership style on well-being
a1 = .307, 95% CI [.18, .44], t = 4.719, p = .000. The sign of a1 is positive, meaning that those
relatively higher in prestige-based leadership style are estimated to be higher in their well-being and with a p = .000 it means that the results support this hypothesis.
The second hypothesis that was tested was H3b “The relationship between prestige-based
leadership style and negative gossip will be mediated by employee well-being”. When testing
for a mediation effect of well-being, the model also gives the results for b1 = -0.265,
95% CI [.56, .033], t = -1.764, p = .081. In contrast with the b1 in the model with
dominance-based leadership style, the b1 in the model with prestige-based leadership style is not
significant. The total effect of prestige-based leadership style on gossip is c = -.514, 95% CI [0.70, -0.32], t = -5.386, p = .000. The negative sign means the person perceiving a greater prestige-based leadership style with his leader reports lower levels of gossip. The model also gives the direct effect of prestige-based leadership style, c′ = -.433, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.22],
t= -4.117, p = .000. Like with dominance-based leadership style also here the indirect effect is
needed to see if there is support for the hypothesis. The indirect effect is -0.081 but this is not significant as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is includes the zero (-0.197 to 0.232). So even though the results give a very slight indication for a mediation effect, the indirect effect is not significant. Therefore, hypothesis H3b is not supported.
5.3.3. Moderated mediation
The last analysis is a moderated mediation analysis for which model 7 of the PROCESS macro for SPSS by Hayes (2013) was used. The results are shown in table 7 and 8.
Results show that there is no moderated mediation (BootSE .043, 95% CI -.108, .700] even though the direct effect of dominance-based leadership style on well-being becomes stronger by external threat. The a1 increased to -.101 (in the mediation model it was -.096) in this
analysis. However, this still is not significant (p >.05). As the relation remains negative, the hypothesis H4a which stated, “The negative relationship between dominance-based
leadership style and employee well-being will be moderated by perceived threat, such that the relationship become positive when perceived threat is high.” is rejected.
For prestige-based leadership style the results in model 4 did not reveal significant mediation. This appears mainly to be caused by the relationship between well-being and gossip which was not significant. Although the results did show a significant relationship between prestige-based leadership style and well-being, it is still possible that external threat might influence the relationship. However, the data did not support this possibility, 95% CI [-.034, .073]. Therefore, the hypothesis H4b in which was stated, “The positive relationship between
prestige-based leadership style and employee well-being will be moderated by perceived threat, such that the relationship will remain but become less strong when perceived threat is high.” must be rejected.
6. Discussion
In this chapter the theoretical and the practical implications are discussed. Both the limitations of this research are addressed and directions for future research are mentioned. In the last paragraph a short conclusion is provided.
6.1. Theoretical implications
The purpose of this study was to add knowledge in several ways. Firstly, by expanding the knowledge within the organizational literature on gossip and leadership styles, and more precisely by looking at two relatively limited known leadership styles, dominance-based leadership style and prestige-based leadership style. Secondly, to see whether the effect of these two leadership styles on negative gossip is mediated by well-being. And lastly, to
examine whether the contextual factor of perceived external threat by an employee, influences the degree to which dominance-based and prestige-based leadership styles impacts well-being and gossip. In total, the data of 98 employees was used in order to answer the hypotheses about the expected relationships.
To start with the first two hypotheses; these were about the direct relationship between the leadership style and gossip. Consistent with the expectations, the results show significant support for a positive relationship between a dominance-based leadership style and negative gossip. Also, the second hypothesis in which was expected that prestige-based would be negatively related to negative gossip was supported. First of all, the fact that for both
leadership styles a significant relationship is found with gossip is in line with earlier findings that gossip is common within groups of people with social hierarchies. This is because
gossiping is a way to strengthen the mutual social bonds within the groups (Dunbar, 2004). In addition, employees like to gain information – and gossip is one way of gaining information – about a person with a high formal status (Ellwardt, Wittek, & Wielers, 2012; McAndrew,
Bell, & Garcia, 2007). Secondly, the results for the directions of the relationship with negative gossip were also in line with findings in the literature. Dominance-based leadership style was positively related to negative gossip. This because a dominance-based leadership style is about gaining control by creating physical and/or psychological fear (Kakkar & Sivanathan, 2017). This causes negative experiences, which in their turn can cause gossiping because group members either retroact in a negative way (Decoster et al., 2013) and/ or search for social support (Dunbar, 2004). For the prestige-based leadership style the opposite was expected; it would be negatively related to negative gossip. Both these hypotheses were supported by the results.
The second set of hypotheses concerned the leadership styles and well-being. It was expected that dominance-based leadership style was negatively related to well-being and that prestige-based leadership style would be positively related to well-being. Previous research has indicated the existence of a relationship between well-being and a certain kind of
leadership style (Munir & Nielsen, 2009; Sparks et al., 2001). Some studies have reported that a leadership style had a positive relationship with well-being (Kalshoven & Boon, 2012; van Dierendonck et al., 2004). Those leadership styles that were researched showed some
similarities with the prestige-based leadership style. Other studies found a negative relationship with well-being (Lin et al., 2013; Mathieu et al., 2014; Tepper, 2000). Those leadership styles showed some resemblances with the dominance-based leadership style. Based on these literature findings, it was expected that for both hypotheses significant support would be found. However, only the relationship between the prestige-based leadership style and well-being was significant. This came as a big surprise, as it was expected that the dominance-based leadership style would also impact upon the well-being of employees. This was expected because previous research had already found a significant negative relationship between a leadership style and well-being. More importantly, those leadership styles with a
negative effect on well-being, for example abusive supervision and destructive leadership, clearly contain similar negative elements as found in the dominance-based leadership style. The explanation for not finding a significant relationship could be in the fact that a leadership style is just one of many factors that influence a person’s well-being (Fisher, 2010). Another explanation might be in the fact that employees take more distance from a leader who has a leadership style that contains negative elements (Lin et al., 2013). By taking more distance the impact of the leadership style and therefore the influence of the leadership style on well-being is limited. Although no significant support was found for the relationship between
dominance-based leadership style and well-being, the expected direction of the relationship was indeed negative. Therefore, the negative aspects of the dominance-based leadership style indeed seem to have more impact upon well-being than the fact that dominance-based
leadership style gives clarity.
Contrary to a dominance-based leadership style, for a prestige-based leadership style the expected positive relationship with well-being was found. The explanation for this could lie in the fact that as this leadership style is about the sharing of knowledge and/ or skills, employees who interact with a leader with this leadership style will gain knowledge and skills themselves. This will improve their status within the group, and in turn improve their well-being. Therefore, the impact of prestige-based leadership style on the well-being is
significant.
Regarding the mediation effect of well-being as described in hypotheses 3a and 3b, the study shows that well-being neither for dominance-based leadership style nor for prestige-based leadership style has a mediation effect upon gossiping. There is a correlation between the way an employee is feeling, his/ her being, and negative gossiping. However, well-being is not a mediator in the relationship between a leadership style and negative gossip. This is somewhat surprising, especially, as gossiping can be a way to relieve stress (Grosser,
Lopez-Kidwell, & Labianca, 2010), which certainly under the dominance-based leadership style may occur. However, the results do not show support for this expectation. It is however interesting that the direct relationship between the leadership style and gossiping did change when well-being was added. This means that well-being is (although not statistically
significant) part of the explanation of the relationship between leadership style and gossip. On the other hand, the result in this study are, although not significant, in line with the literature that states that gossiping occurs all the time as this is part of who we are as humans (Dunbar, 2004; Grosser et al., 2010).
In hypotheses 4a and 4b it was expected that a perceived external threat would moderate the relationship of leadership style and well-being and a moderated mediation would take place for gossip. However, these expectations did not hold. Although, the relationship between both of the leadership styles and well-being showed some very slight changes when a perceived external threat was added, these changes were by far not
significant. Perhaps the current external threat that employees perceive for their organizations is not so extreme that it majorly influences the relationship between leadership style and well-being? In most of the literature where context indeed was an influencer in the relationship between leadership style and the well-being, the contextual situations were (economic) crisis situations (Hannah et al., 2009) and as the current economic situation in The Netherlands is stable this might serve as an explanation.
To conclude, the finding in this research are consistent with the findings in other studies on the relationship between leadership style and gossiping. No significant relationship was found for the mediating influence of well-being, and neither were there significant findings for a moderating effect of perceived external threat. Next to theoretical reasons, the possible explanation for these unsupported relationships could very well lie within the used research methods. This will be discussed in the paragraph about limitations.
6.2. Practical implications
Besides theoretical implications, the outcomes of this study can also have practical implications. The dependent variable in this study is gossip. Research shows that people spend between 65% and 90% of their daily conversations gossiping (Beersma & Kleef, 2012). This shows that gossip is an important element in life. From the finding in this study it
becomes clear that there is a significant relationship between gossiping and the two leadership styles, dominance-based leadership style and the prestige-based leadership style. Although there are negative consequences of gossiping like a higher turnover of staff or a less
productive work environment (Difonzo et al., 1994), previous research stated that gossiping is hardly something that can be avoided. There will always be negative gossiping about the management, especially in organizations where employees are somewhat packed together (Ellwardt et al., 2012). As long as there is a formal structure with a leader that holds
controlled authority, that person will be the preferred subject of the gossip between employees (Wittek & Wielers, 1998). Therefore, the practical implication is that spending time and money on programs to reduce gossiping on the work floor are a waste of resources. Losing the formal structure within the organization seems like a better plan.
As for the relationship between the leadership style and well-being, it is good to know that the well-being can be influenced in a positive way by a prestige-based leadership style. Because the well-being of employee is important. When the well-being of employees is low this can lead to lower performance, increased absenteeism and higher staff turnover (Baptiste, 2008). Therefore, selecting leaders with a more prestige-based leadership style can be helpful to the organization. According to recent research, structured interviews can help to establish traits belonging to a leadership style of potential new recruits. (Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, & Stone, 2001).
Although much research has been carried out on the impact of gossiping on the well-being of an employee, this is not the case for the impact of well-well-being of the level of gossip. In the literature on gossiping nothing specific is stated about how a person’s well-being is affecting their tendency to gossip. However, the motives for gossiping give a slight indication that when the well-being is lower, for example when people feel envious or treated unfairly, they gossip more (Beersma & Kleef, 2012). But whether they gossip less or more when they feel unhappy compared to when they are feeling good, is unclear.
6.3. Limitations
This research has some limitations. First of all, the research is done on the basis of self-reported questionnaires, which can cause common-method bias. Meaning that people tend to evaluate themselves more positively than how they are really are feeling (Krueger, 1998). Using a different source for the dependent and the independent variable is one of the possible solutions (Chang et al., 2010).
The second limitation is that this research is a cross sectional study which is used ‘to describe the incidence of a phenomenon or to explain how factors are related in different organizations’ at a particular instance in time (Saunders, 2009, p. 155). A cross sectional study is like taking a snapshot at certain point in time. This means that responses can be influenced by the emotional situation of the person at that specific time. Therefore, it limits the ability to causal effects (Field, 2013). A longitudinal study might give other results.
A third limitation is the number of respondents. Although, a sample size with 98 respondents is sufficient, a larger sample size increases the reliability of a study. Also, an increase in respondents is likely to cause a more diverse sample, which is good for the generalizability.
Finally, there are a few limitations which all are related to the used sampling method. The sampling was non-probability convenience sampling. This type of sampling is efficient but has consequences for the external validity as the sample does not reflect the whole population. Furthermore, the sampling was done via a post on LinkedIn. The people who participated decided themselves to fill in the survey. This self-selection comes with the risk that the respondents are not representative of the population (Saunders & Lewis, 2012)
because they have strong feelings or opinion about the specific topic. Moreover, the spreading of the link via LinkedIn, a snowball sampling technique, can cause the group of participants to become homogeneous.
6.4. Future directions
The limitations are a good starting point for future research. It would be interesting to see whether outcomes would change when multiple sources are used, or the sample size is increased or when a sample group is followed for a longer period of time.
In the field of psychology, sociology, anthropology and zoology the constructs of dominance and prestige are well known (Cheng et al., 2013). Gaining more insight into how dominance and prestige influence leadership might explain certain behavior within social groups and therefore within organization. Also, currently little is known about the long-term effects of dominance-based or prestige-based leadership in organization and on employees.
It might also be interesting to explore the potential differences between the genders. The evolutionary literature seems to suggest that men have a greater tendencies toward dominance than women (Wilson & Daly, 1985). Studies looking into the testosterone level of men seems to support this prediction (Mazur & Booth, 1998). However, no differences between men and women are mentioned when looking at the usage of dominance-based and prestige-based leadership style (Maner & Case, 2016).
Gossip has already been the subject of many studies. However, understanding
gossiping can give valuable insights into the dynamics of human networks and other socially related phenomena (McAndrew et al., 2007). Therefore, research on this subject should continue.
For the contextual element of perceived external threat and it’s possible influence on the relationships within the conceptual model, the current stable economic situation might be the reason for the fact that in contrast with the literature no influence was found. Perhaps the results would change when the same study is done in times of an economic crisis.
7. Conclusion
The current study aimed to gain more insights into the effect of two leadership styles which are relatively unknown within the organizational literature, namely dominance-based and prestige-based leadership style. This was done by looking at the relationship between both leadership styles, the level of negative gossip about the leader and whether this relationship would be mediated by employee well-being, and moderated by perceived external threat. The results showed that both leadership styles had a significant relationship with gossip. However, the relationship between the leadership styles and gossip was not mediated by well-being. The prestige-based leadership style did have a significant relationship with being, but well-being did not mediate the relationship with gossip. For dominance-based leadership style the relationship with well-being was not significant. Also, the results did not show a moderating effect for perceived threat. These finding were somewhat surprising, and not in line with earlier findings where a leadership style did impact upon the well-being and perceived external threat did have an influence. Therefore, more research into these two leadership styles is needed to unravel their effects.
Reference list
Baptise, N. R. (2008). Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and performance; A new dimension for HRM. Management Decision, 46(2), 284-309. Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., Matkin, G. S., & Marx, D. B. (2007). Effects of Gender,
Education, and Age upon Leaders’ Use of Influence Tactics and Full Range Leadership Behaviors. Sex Roles, 56(1–2), 71–83.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, USA: The Free Press.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in Organizational Research: A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations.
Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why People Gossip: An Empirical Analysis of Social Motives, Antecedents, and Consequences. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 42(11), 2640–2670.
Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: the evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2005). The origin and evolution of cultures. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Brush, D. H., Moch, M. K., & Pooyan, A. (1987). Individual Demographic Differences and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 8(2), 139–155.
Campbell, D. J. (2012). Chapter Thirteen- Leadership in Dangerous Contexts. In J. H. Laurence, & M. D. Matthews (Eds,), The Oxford Handbook of Military Psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Case, C. R., & Maner, J. K. (2014). Divide and Conquer: When and Why Leaders Undermine the Cohesive Fabric of Their Group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
107(6), 1033–1050.
Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the Editors: Common Method Variance in International Business Research. Journal of International Business
Studies, 41(2), 178–184.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two Ways to the Top: Evidence That Dominance and Prestige Are Distinct Yet Viable Avenues to Social Rank and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347. Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and Well-Being in the Workplace: A Review and
Synthesis of the Literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357–384.
De Waal. (1999). Chimpanzee politics: Power and sex among apes. New York, USA: Harper & Row.
De Waal-Andrews, W., Gregg, A. P., & Lammers, J. (2015). When status is grabbed and when status is granted: Getting ahead in dominance and prestige hierarchies. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 54(3), 445–464.
Decoster, S., Camps, J., Stouten, J., Vandevyvere, L., & Tripp, T. M. (2013). Standing by Your Organization: The Impact of Organizational Identification and Abusive Supervision on Followers’ Perceived Cohesion and Tendency to Gossip. Journal of
Business Ethics, 118(3), 623–634.
Difonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational
Dynamics, 23(1), 47–62.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2005). Assessing leadership styles and organisational context.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 105–123.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in Evolutionary Perspective. Review of General Psychology,
8(2), 100–110.
Ellwardt, L., Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (2012). Talking About the Boss: Effects of
Generalized and Interpersonal Trust on Workplace Gossip. Group & Organization
Management, 37(4), 521–549.
Emler, N. (1990). A Social Psychology of Reputation. European Review of Social
Psychology, 1(1), 171–193.
Enquist, M., & Leimar, O. (1993). The evolution of cooperation in mobile organisms. Animal
Behaviour, 45(4), 747–757.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistic (4th ed.). London, England: Sage.
Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at Work. International Journal of Management Reviews,
12(4), 384–412.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on Gossip: Taxonomy, Methods, and Future Directions.
Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 78–99.
Gilbreath, B., & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee psychological well-being. Work & Stress, 18(3), 255–266.
Gladstein, D. L., & Reilly, N. P. (1985). Group Decision Making under Threat: The Tycoon Game. The Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 613–627.
Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A Social Network Analysis of Positive and Negative Gossip in Organizational Life. Group & Organization
Management, 35(2), 177–212.
Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 897–919. Henrich, J., Chudek, M., & Boyd, R. (2015). The Big Man Mechanism: how prestige fosters
cooperation and creates prosocial leaders. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 370, 20150013.
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?
Journal of Management, 23(3), 409–473.
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and Meta- Analytic Assessment of Psychological Constructs Measured in Employment
Interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 897–913.
Isenberg, D. J. (1981). Some effects of time-pressure on vertical structure and decision- making accuracy in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
27(1), 119–134.
Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research. Management Science,
28(3), 315–336.
Johns, G. (2006). The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior. The Academy
