WHY DO LEADERS DEROGATE THEIR SUBORDINATES?
THE IMPACT OF POWER, POWER LEGITIMACY, AND POWER THREAT, ON LEADERS’ UNDERMINING LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR
Master thesis, MSc HRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
WHY DO LEADERS DEROGATE THEIR SUBORDINATES?
THE IMPACT OF POWER, POWER LEGITIMACY, AND POWER THREAT, ON LEADERS’ UNDERMINING LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR
ABSTRACT
Considering that existing literature about undermining leadership behaviour mainly focused on the negative consequences of undermining leadership behaviour, the present paper aimed to examine the causes of such behaviour. Building on social dominance theory, the present research investigates the roles of power, power legitimacy, and power threat on undermining leadership behaviour. The present paper proposes that power is only associated with increased undermining leadership behaviour when power is illegitimate, and that this relationship is mediated by power threat. The hypotheses were tested in a field study in The Netherlands including 69 leaders and 101 immediate subordinates. Results did not show support for any of the hypotheses. Explanations for not finding support for the hypotheses are discussed, the present research limitations are examined, and recommendations for future research are provided.
1
INTRODUCTION
Hostile behaviours by leaders towards employees costs organizations in the United States approximately 23.8 billion dollars every year because of increased healthcare costs, absenteeism, and loss of productivity (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006). Undermining leadership behaviour is such a hostile leadership behaviour, which not only leads to increased costs, but also has other negative effects on several employee outcomes. For example,
previous research showed thatundermining leadership behaviour towards employees leads to decreased employee commitment, self-efficacy, voice climate perceptions, and increased emotional exhaustion and use of counterproductive behaviours from employees (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Frazier & Bowler, 2015; Yoo & Frankwick, 2013).
Considering the many negative effects of undermining leadership behaviour for employees and organizations as a whole, it is important to understand why this form of leadership occurs (Tepper et al., 2006). To date, however, research mainly focused on identifying the negative consequences of undermining leadership behaviour, whereas little remains known about the predictors of undermining leadership behaviour (Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Tepper, 2000, 2007). Building on social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), the present research examines the roles of power, power legitimacy, and power threat for leaders’ undermining leadership behaviour. Specifically, the current research proposes that power and power legitimacy interact to influence undermining leadership behaviour, and that this interaction is mediated by leader’s power threats.
According to social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), societies exist of groups and power is unequally distributed between these groups. Since power places powerful groups in an advantaged position, those high in power want to maintain their power position. Furthermore, social dominance theory suggests that powerholders aim to protect their power through the use of legitimizing myths, which are values, attitudes, beliefs, and stereotypes. Specifically, legitimizing myths can entail derogation of the powerless, aiding powerholders in maintaining and justifying the current power distribution by suggesting that the powerless deserve their less privileged position and that the inequality in power between groups is fair.
2
increased stereotyping (Fiske, 1993; Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2000), aggression (Fast & Chen, 2009), negative performance evaluations (Georgeson & Harris, 1998), and objectification (Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, & Galinsky, 2008). In accordance with the previously mentioned research and social dominance theory, the first aim of the present research is to show that power is associated with increased undermining leadership behaviour. The present paper proposes that leaders show undermining leadership behaviour in order to look better in comparison to their subordinates and at the same time decrease subordinates’ confidence to confront the current distribution of power (Duffy et al., 2002).
Moreover, the present research investigates the moderating role of power legitimacy for the relationship between power and undermining leadership behaviour. As previously mentioned, social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) suggests that leaders want to justify their privileged power position. Consequentially, when leaders do not deserve their power, leaders would need to use more legitimizing myths in order to justify their power position. Power legitimacy concerns whether a leader and their subordinates recognize that a leader holds the power to lead and actually deserves power (Ma, 2000; Willis, Guinote, & Rodríguez-Bailón, 2010). Since illegitimate power is less stable, illegitimate power increases uncertainty concerning the leaders’ power position (Williams, 2014; Willis et al., 2010), and hence the second aim of the present research is to show that leaders will experience a higher urge to use undermining leadership behaviour when power is illegitimate (vs legitimate).
An explanation for the interaction effect of power and power legitimacy for undermining leadership behaviour can be found in leaders’ power threats. As previously mentioned, social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) suggest that leaders want to legitimize their power position in order to remain in power. Subsequently, when the
possibility to lose power increases because power is threatened, such as under conditions of illegitimate power, leaders will behave in such a way that will prevent them from losing their power (Williams, 2014). Rodriguez-Bailón, Moya, and Yzerbyt (2000) suggest that
3
The present research provides important contributions to existing literature of undermining leadership behaviour. First, with regards to undermining leadership behaviour research, the current research offers new knowledge concerning antecedents of undermining leadership behaviour. To date, extant research mainly focused on the consequences of undermining leadership behaviour. Hence, by examining the roles of power, power
legitimacy, and power threat for undermining leadership behaviour, the current research will contribute to a better understanding of what drives leaders to show such behaviour.
Second, the present research provides important contributions to existing literature of power. Even though previous research investigated the influences of power for abusive behaviour (Lammers, Stapel, & Galinsky, 2010; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003, Kipnis, 1972), the majority of these studies examined power in experimental settings (Lammers, Stoker, & Stapel, 2010). Specifically, in these studies, power was often
manipulated and student samples were frequently used. Hence, to date we know little about the effect power has on abusive behaviour of actual power holders. Therefore, researchers have recently argued for more field studies measuring power by including actual power holders (Flynn, Gruenfeld, Molm, and Polzer, 2011). Flynn and colleagues’ (2011) main argument is that priming or manipulating power might have different consequences on individuals’ behaviour than actually possessing power. Therefore, the current research contributes to existing literature by examining the consequences of power for undermining leadership behaviour in a field study using actual powerholders.
The present research also provides important practical implications. When research shows when and why leaders show undermining leadership behaviour, organizations can start preventing undermining leadership behaviour in order to reduce costs and negative impacts on employees that are caused by undermining leadership behaviour. The present paper proposes that leaders show undermining leadership behaviour when their power is illegitimate. Hence, the present paper suggests that organization can aim to avoid undermining leadership
4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Social Dominance Theory
Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) is based on the basic tenet that societies are organized as group based hierarchies, in which some groups have more power than other groups. Furthermore, social dominance theory suggests that powerful groups try to stabilize and justify existing power hierarchies through the use of legitimizing myths in order to maintain the privileges that result from power. Legitimizing myths support the current inequality in power and Sidanius and Pratto (1999, p.45) describe legitimizing myths as: “attitudes, values, beliefs, stereotypes and ideologies which provide an intellectual and moral justification for social practices”. For example, previous research has shown that powerful groups discriminate the powerless (Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006), are prejudiced towards the powerless (Quist & Resendez, 2002), have stereotypes about the powerless (Quist & Resendez, 2002), and show favouritism towards in-group members (Dasgupta, 2004). The previously mentioned research shows that powerful groups derogate powerless groups in order to legitimize current power relations. Legitimizing myths, such as derogation of the powerless, stabilize and legitimize existing power relations by suggesting that powerless groups actually deserve their lower position. Consequentially, powerless groups often cooperate with powerful groups in maintaining the current distribution of power because powerless groups believe that they indeed are inferior (Pratto et al., 2006).
Power and Undermining Leadership Behaviour
Although social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) is primarily based on the behaviour of people in groups, the theory can provide valuable insights for interpersonal power relations as well (e.g., the relationship between leaders and their subordinates). Interpersonal power is defined as “the asymmetric control over valued resources in social relations” (Magee and Galinsky, 2008, p. 361). This means that those with less power (i.e., subordinates) are dependent on those with power (i.e., leaders) to obtain rewards or prevent punishments (Emerson, 1962). Important in this definition of power by Magee and Galinsky (2008), is that power concerns control over valued resources. The resource must be
5
confident (Fast, Sivanathan, Mayer, & Galinsky, 2011; See, Morrison, Rothman, & Soll, 2011), perceive enhanced well-being (Kifer, Heller, Perunovic, & Galinsky, 2013), and perceive a greater sense of control (Fast, Gruenfeld, Sivanathan, & Galinsky, 2009).
Consequentially, leaders are encouraged to protect their power in order to prevent losing such benefits (Georgeson & Harris, 2006; Williams, 2014). Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) suggests that one way in which leaders could attempt to maintain their power is by derogating their subordinates. Through derogating subordinates, leaders try to appear more competent while making their subordinates appear less competent. Undermining leadership behaviour is such a derogating behaviour and Duffy and colleagues (2002, p.332) define undermining leadership behaviour as: “behaviour intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and
favourable reputation”. Actions that can be considered as examples of undermining leadership behaviour are: supervisors talking behind their subordinates back, supervisors spreading rumours about their subordinates, and supervisors intentionally making subordinates feel incompetent (Yoo & Frankwick, 2013).
Previous research shows that powerholders indeed derogate their subordinates (Georgeson & Harrison, 1998; 2000). Kipnis (1972) for instance, examined whether power leads to derogating behaviours by simulating an organizational setting. Participants were assigned to either a management or non-management position. Results showed that participants assigned to the management position devaluated the performance of the powerless, wanted to increase social distance between themselves and the powerless, and were more manipulative towards those with less power compared to participants assigned to non-management positions.
Similarly, Georgeson and Harris (2000) studied the effect of power for interpersonal relationships between leaders and their subordinates. Participants were divided in same-gender dyads and randomly assigned to either the position of boss or employee. Participants were further instructed that they needed to solve a pressing problem and that the best three teams would be rewarded with a monetary prize. Results showed that participants assigned to the boss condition felt smarter, had increased self-ratings, and derogated employees more compared to participants assigned to the employee condition.
6
powerless, compared to participants assigned to low power conditions. Overall, the previously mentioned studies show that power affects behaviour in such a way that those in power do not only feel better about themselves but also put those with less power down.
Following the reasoning of social dominance theory and the previously mentioned research on the effects of power, undermining leadership behaviour can be considered a legitimizing myth, used by leaders as a means and justification to maintain the current
distribution of power. By putting their subordinates down, leaders try to look more competent in comparison to their subordinates. When subordinates are subjected to undermining
leadership behaviour, the behaviour can decrease work related success, reputation, self-efficacy, and the ability to have positive relationships (Duffy, et al., 2002). This means that subordinates that are subjected to undermining leadership behaviour will not only feel a decreased sense of self-worth, but also that other subordinates will consider them less successful because the behaviour can decrease subordinates’ reputation (Duffy, et al., 2002). Thus, through undermining leadership behaviour, leaders aim to decrease competition from their subordinatesand justify their power position. Hence, the present paper proposes that possession of power is associated with undermining leadership behaviour by leaders. This expectation is represented in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Power is associated with increased undermining leadership behaviour.
The Moderating Role of Power Legitimacy
Power is important to organizations since it can be used to direct, coordinate, and instruct subordinates (Hegtvedt & Johnson, 2009). However, Turner (2005) argues that merely possessing power is not sufficient for guiding or influencing subordinates effectively, Turner (2005) states that legitimacy of power also plays an important role. When power originates from dubious conditions such as luck, power is considered illegitimate and seen as unstable and inadequate (Williams, 2014; Willis, Guinote, & Rodríguez-Bailón, 2010). Illegitimate power can lead to active opposition by subordinates, less willingness to follow, and resistance towards leaders (Blau, 1964; Lammers et al., 2008; Ellemers, Wilke, & Van Knippenberg, 1993). An explanation for these behaviours is that power illegitimacy indicates that the current distribution of power can be altered (Lammers, et al., 2008). Consequentially, leaders might experience that their power is less certain because competent subordinates might be aiming for their position (Williams, 2014). On the contrary, power can be considered legitimate when it is based on acknowledged reasons, such as skill, competence or
7
actions of their leader are appropriate, which motivates them to follow their authority (Hegtvedt, & Johnson, 2009).
As previously mentioned, social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) suggests that leaders use legitimizing myths in order to justify their power position. Consequentially, social dominance theory implies that when leaders believe that they do not deserve their power position, for example when power is illegitimate, their need to use legitimizing myths in order to justify the current power relations should increase. Following social dominance theory, the present paper proposes that power legitimacy moderates the relationship between power and undermining leadership behaviour because power legitimacy concerns whether the current distribution of power is questioned or not (Williams, 2014; Willis, Guinote, &
Rodríguez-Bailón, 2010; Rodriguez-Bailón, Moya, & Yzerbyt, 2000). When power is illegitimate, leaders themselves and others do not recognize that a leader holds the power to lead, thereby increasing the need to justify their power through legitimizing myths (Ma, 2000; Willis, et al., 2010).
To date, first research has indeed shown that power legitimacy moderates the relationship between power and leaders’ behaviour towards subordinates. Specifically, Rodriguez-Bailón and colleagues (2000) investigated the relationship between power, power legitimacy and stereotyping. In their study, participants were randomly assigned to conditions of low or high power, and participants of the high power condition were assigned to
conditions of legitimate and illegitimate power. Participants in the illegitimate condition were explicitly told about the random distribution of power, while participant in the legitimate condition presumed that assignment of power was based on participants’ social skills. The results of their study shows that participants assigned to the illegitimate power condition paid more attention to negative stereotype-consistent information about their subordinates than participants assigned to the legitimate power condition. This research thus suggests that leaders whose power is illegitimate show derogating behaviour to justify their power position. On the contrary, powerholders whose power is legitimate do not feel the urge to emphasize the negative features of their subordinates (Rodriguez-Bailón, et al., 2000).
8
leaders with legitimate power should not have an increased urge to show undermining leadership behaviour. Therefore, the second hypothesis of the present research is as follows:
Hypothesis 2. Power and legitimacy of power interact to influence undermining leadership behaviour, such that power is associated with increased undermining leadership behaviour when legitimacy of power is low, but not when legitimacy of power is high.
The Mediating Role of Power Threat
Finally, the present paper investigates whether power threat mediates the interaction effect of power and power legitimacy for undermining leadership behaviour. As indicated before, social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) suggests that powerholders want to remain in power. However, leaders should not take their power for granted because power hierarchies are rarely entirely stable. The possibility always exists that lower level employees aim for their leader’s position and leaders can be demoted, or even fired (Georgeson & Harris, 1998). Hence, leaders should continuously be on their guard against power threats if they want to maintain their position (Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005).
Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) further suggests that leaders aim to justify and protect their power position by derogating their subordinates. Consequentially, social dominance theory implies that when leaders experience threat to their power, for example when power is illegitimate, leaders will use legitimizing myths in order to protect their power and reduce threat. According to Kouchaki and Desai (2015) individuals indeed behave in protective ways when they feel threatened. Specifically, individuals may show dominance (Smith, Jost, & Vijay, 2006), aggression (Fast & Chen, 2009), exert more control (Georgeson & Harris, 2006), and harm others (Kouchaki & Desai, 2015) when they feel threatened.
Rodriguez-Bailón and colleagues (2010) argue that because power legitimacy concerns whether the current distribution of power is questioned or not, power legitimacy affects power threat experienced by leaders and leaders adjust their behaviour accordingly. Specifically, leaders whose power is illegitimate might experience more power threat because they might realise that they do not deserve their power because they do not possess the right capabilities and standards for their power position. As previously mentioned, power
9
Besides Rodriguez-Bailón and colleagues (2010), other research also suggests that power threat mediates the relationship between power and behaviour. Studies by Fast and Chen (2009) investigated the role of self-perceived competence in the relationship between power and aggression. Fast and Chen (2009) argue that possession of power increases the need to feel competent in order to maintain power. Results indeed showed that when powerholders feel incompetent, their perception of power threat heightens, increasing the need to show aggressive behaviours in order to protect and justify their power.
The previously mentioned research shows that powerholders perceive more power threat under conditions suggesting that powerholders do not deserve their power.
Furthermore, the previously mentioned research shows that when powerholders experience threat to their power they might behave in protective ways in order to remain in power. Therefore, in accordance with social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and the previously mentioned research, the present research proposes that power threat mediates the interaction effect of power and power legitimacy for undermining leadership behaviour. Hence, the third hypothesis of the present paper is as follows:
Hypothesis 3: The interaction effect of power and power legitimacy for undermining leadership behaviour is mediated by power threat.
10 METHODS Procedure
In order to gather data for the present research, a field study was conducted in several organizations in The Netherlands. Two separate online questionnaires were developed, one for leaders and one for their immediate subordinates. The leader questionnaire contained questions concerning the variables power, power legitimacy, power threat, and several demographic variables. The subordinate questionnaire contained questions concerning the subordinate leaders’ undermining leadership behaviour and several demographic variables. Furthermore, the subordinate questionnaire was personalized, the leaders’ name was mentioned to ensure that subordinates assessed the right leader. Leaders and subordinates were approached by email, phone or in person. For each leader, two immediate subordinates were asked to complete the questionnaire. When participants agreed to take part in the questionnaire, they received an email with the correct online questionnaire. Participants had two weeks to complete the questionnaire, after a week a reminder was sent if participants were not able to finish the questionnaire yet. Complete anonymity was guaranteed to all participants which is especially important considering the ethical nature of the study. Participants and Sample
initially, the study meant to use aggregated data of two subordinates for each leader in order to acquire a more accurate view of the leaders’ undermining leadership behaviour. However, due to the response rate of the subordinates it was not feasible to discard data when only one subordinate completed the questionnaire (in this case data of twenty-four leaders would be eliminated). The decision was made to include leaders into the sample when only one subordinate assessed their undermining leadership behaviour but still aggregate data when two subordinates completed the questionnaire.
11
subordinate for twelve out of the eighty-two leaders. Hence, data of these twelve leaders could not be used, leaving us with data of a total number of 69 leaders and 111 subordinates.
The sample consisted for 56.70% out of male leaders and for 57.30 % out of male subordinates. The mean age of the leaders was 43.73 (SD = 10.90) and subordinates had a mean age of 38.49 (SD =36.50). On average, leaders worked 13.56 years (SD = 10.86) for their current organization while subordinates worked 8.60 years (SD = 6.00) for their current organization. The education level for 80.60% of the leaders and 63.90% of the subordinates was on HBO or WO level. Subordinates worked on average 3.52 years (SD = 3.92) for their current leader.
Measures
All items were translated from English to Dutch because the questionnaire was conducted in The Netherlands. A full list of the used items and their Dutch translation can be found in Appendix A. All items were measured on a scale from 1() to 7().
Power was measured with four items (α = .797) derived from research by Lammers, Stoker, and Stapel (2010). Leaders had to indicate the degree of power, influence, status, and authority they possess.
Undermining leadership behaviour was measured with thirteen items (α = .923) taken from Duffy and colleagues (2002). Subordinates had to indicate how often their supervisor intentionally used certain undermining leadership behaviours. Examples of items are: “How often has your supervisor intentionally insulted you”, “How often has your supervisor intentionally talked bad about you behind your back”, and “How often has your supervisor intentionally talked down to you”.
Power threat was measured with four items (α = .884) taken from Kouchaki and Desai (2014). Leaders had to indicate to what extent they experienced any threat with regards to their status, ability to access resources, ability to exert power, and ability to achieve goals at work.
Power legitimacy was measured with three slightly adapted items (α = .719) from Frost and Stahelsk (1988). The slightly adapted items were: “I have the right to expect that my subordinates follow my instructions”, “I expect that my subordinates do what I say because I am the boss”, and “I expect that my subordinates do what I say because I possess certain information my subordinates do not possess”.
Control variables that were considered are leaders’ age, gender, tenure, and
12
Perrewé, Hall, Frink, & Hochwarter, 2008), gender (Pratto, Stallworth, & Sidanius, 1997; Acquino & Douglas, 2003), and tenure (Duffy et al., 2002) might influence undermining leadership behaviour. In addition, previous research shows that different employment contracts are associated with different levels of threat (Naswall & De Witte, 2003).
RESULTS Preliminary Analysis
Assumptions check of analysis. Regression analysis has to conform to five
assumptions. The assumptions of regression analysis are continuous level of the dependent and independent variables, linear relationship between dependent and independent variables, independence of observations, and proximal normal distribution, and no significant outliers.
The first assumption, continuous level, means that the dependent and independent variables are measured at a continuous level. Since both dependent and independent variable are measured on a 1-7 Likert scale, the first assumption is met.
The second assumption, linear relationship, entails that there needs to be a linear relationship between the dependent and independent variable. Results confirmed a linear relationship between the dependent and independent variable which means the second assumption is met.
The third assumption, independence of observations, entails that data from the dependent and independent variable are not related, and was tested with the Durban Watson test. Results showed that the dependent and independent variable are independent of each other (1.825 > 1.0).
The fourth assumption, proximal normal distribution, means that data of the dependent variable needs to be proximally normally distributed and was tested with the
Shapiro-Wilkinson test and skewness and kurtosis. Results of the Shapiro-Shapiro-Wilkinson test (D(69) = 0.81, p < 0.05) showed that undermining leadership behaviour was not normally distributed. Furthermore, undermining leadership behaviour has a skewness of 1.94 (SE = .30) and kurtosis of 4.807 (SE = .59). Transforming the dependent variable did not lead to a normal distribution of the data. Further tests used both regular and transformed variable which did not lead to significant differences. For this reason, only results of analyses with the untransformed variable will be mentioned. An explanation for the non-normal distribution is that
13
1.53 – 1.80 (Duffy, et al., 2002; Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, 2006). The fifth assumption, no significant outliers, means that there should not be data points that are significantly different from other data points in a sample. Data was checked for outliers using the interquartile range rule of 1.5 for outliers and 3.0 for extreme outliers. Undermining leadership behaviour data was considered an outlier or extreme outlier when a participant’s score exceeded 2.42 or 3.23 respectively. Results showed four outliers (scores ranging between 2.42 and 2.62), and one extreme outlier in the data of the variable
undermining leadership behaviour (score of 3.58) that were dropped in the analyses.
14 TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations between Variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Power 4.93 0.68 - 2. Power Legitimacy 4.26 1.24 .006 - 3. Power Threat 2.35 1.11 - 097 .102 - 4. Undermining leadership behaviour 1.46 0.52 -.141 .027 -.042 - 5. Age 43.73 10.90 .142 -.183 .061 -.323** - 6. Gender .43 0.49 -.300* .071 .046 .120 -.014 - 7. Tenure 6.67 7.11 -.051 .180 .202 -.053 .298* .063 - 8. Employment type 1.19 0.66 -.032 -.021 .365** .096 .006 .202 .431** -
15 Main analysis
In order to test the first two hypotheses, regression analysis was performed with the statistical package of Hayes (2013). The analysis controlled for the variables age and gender. The first hypothesis proposed that power is associated with undermining leadership
behaviour. Results show (see table 2) that there was no significant effect of power on
undermining leadership behaviour (B = .044, SE = .048, p = .365). This means that there is no support for the first hypothesis that power is associated with undermining leadership
behaviour.
The second hypothesis proposed that power and power legitimacy interact to influence undermining leadership behaviour. Results show (see table 2) that besides power, power legitimacy also did not have a significant direct effect on undermining leadership behaviour (B = .004, SE = .050, p = .944). In addition, contradictory to my expectations, results found no support for an interaction effect of power and power legitimacy for undermining leadership behaviour (B = -.081, SE = .049, p = .103). However, results showed that there was nearly a significant relationship between power and undermining leadership behaviour when power legitimacy was low (- 1 SD, B = .125, p = .081), but not when legitimacy of power was or high (+1 SD, B = -.035, p = .597). Hence, there was no evidence for an interaction effect between power and power legitimacy for undermining leadership behaviour which means hypothesis 2 cannot be accepted.
TABLE 2
Regression analysis of power and power legitimacy on undermining leadership behaviour
Undermining leadership behaviour
Predictor B SE t p Age -.064 .049 -1.323 .191 Gender -.002 .048 -.045 .965 Power .044 .048 .913 .365 Power Legitimacy .004 .050 .071 .944 Power x power legitimacy -.081 .049 -1.656 .103 R2 = .084 R2Δ = .043 F(5, 58) = 1,069, p = .387 Conditional effect of power on
undermining leadership behaviour at
95% confidence
16 different values of power legitimacy interval
- 1 SD .125 -.016 .265
M .045 -.051 .141
+ 1 SD -.035 -.165 .096
Note: N = 65. * P < .05, ** P < .01
Hypothesis 3 proposed that the interaction effect of power and power legitimacy on undermining leadership behaviour is mediated by power threat. However, since power threat and undermining leadership behaviour are not correlated (see table 1), a mediating effect of power threat on undermining leadership behaviour is not present. Nonetheless, it is possible to test whether there is an interaction effect of power and power legitimacy on power threat. Regression analysis was performed using the statistical package of Hayes (2013) and
controlled for age, gender and employment type. Results show (see table 3) that power (B = -.136, SE = .129, p = .297) and power legitimacy (B = -.193, SE = .134, p = .155) do not have a significant direct effect on power threat. In addition, contradictory to my expectations, results showed no support for an interaction effect of power and power legitimacy for power threat (B = -.051, SE = .133, p = .702). Specifically, results showed that there was no relationship between power and power threat when power legitimacy was low (- 1 SD, B = -.084, p = .660) or high (+1 SD, B = -.185, p = .303). This means that there is neither support for an interaction effect of power and power legitimacy on power threat nor for power threat as a mediator, which means that hypothesis 3 cannot be accepted.
TABLE 3
17 R2 = .173 R2Δ = .002 F(6, 57) = 1.986, p = .862 Conditional effect of power on
undermining leadership behaviour at different values of power legitimacy
95% confidence interval LLCI ULCI - 1 SD -.084 -.464 .296 M -.135 -.392 .123 + 1 SD -.185 -.542 .172 Note: N = 65. * P < .05, ** P < .01 DISCUSSION Findings
The purpose of the present paper was to investigate the effect of power for undermining leadership behaviour and the role of power legitimacy as a moderator, and power threat as a mediator in this relationship. The present paper proposed that power is associated with increased undermining leadership behaviour. Furthermore, I hypothesized that leaders would only show undermining leadership behaviour if their power was illegitimate because they would experience more power threat. In contrast to my expectations, results showed no support that any of the previously established hypotheses should be accepted.
Previous research provides several arguments for not finding support for both the proposed main and interaction effects of the present paper. The first explanation for not finding support for the propositions could be that leaders are afraid that showing undermining leadership behaviour would actually harm instead of protect their power position. When superiors perceive that their leaders show undermining leadership behaviour, it might backfire in such a way that leaders will be fired or demoted for their abusive behaviour. This means that leaders might be worried that they will be held accountable for their behaviour and thus, do not show undermining leadership behaviour. The idea that leaders might be afraid of the consequences of their behaviour, is supported by a study by Rus, Knippenberg and Wisse (2012), that showed that when leaders perceive that they can be held accountable for their actions, the use of self-serving behaviour decreased, as these leaders considered the potential consequences of their actions.
18
research showed that power does not always lead to unethical behaviour and suggests that personality traits also influence the relationship between power and (un)ethical behaviour (Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001; DeCelles, DeRue, Margolis, & Ceranic, 2012). Chen and colleagues (2001), for instance, showed that relationship orientation moderates the effects of power for goal associations. Specifically, Chen and colleagues (2001) found that power is associated with other-oriented goals and behaving socially responsible when someone has a communal relationship orientation, while power is associated with self-interested goals and selfish behaviour when someone has an exchange relationship orientation. DeCelles and colleagues (2012) examined how moral identity affects the relationship between power and self-interested behaviour. Specifically, DeCelles and colleagues (2012) showed that power is associated with self-interested behaviour when moral identity is weak, while power is
associated with less self-interested behaviour when moral identity is strong. Thus, considering the previously mentioned research, the possibility exists that leaders’ personality affects the relationship between power and undermining leadership behaviour.
A third explanation for not finding support for the hypotheses can be found in the research by Anderson, Wilder, Kilduff and Brown (2012), who suggest that not everyone wants to be in a position of power. The present paper is based on social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) which presumes that people want to remain in power. However, if leaders do not want to maintain or increase their power position, they would not feel urged to show undermining leadership behaviour in order to protect their position.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Although the present research did not find support for the established hypotheses, it does provide some theoretical implications. Previous research has shown that age is related to antisocial behaviour (Acquino & Douglas, 2003) and unethical behaviour (Breaux et al., 2008). Specifically, research by Acquino and Douglas (2003), and Breaux and colleagues (2008) shows that younger people might show more antisocial and unethical behaviour than older people. Results of the current research show that age is negatively related to
undermining leadership behaviour as well. Therefore, in accordance with previously mentioned research, the present paper contributes to our understanding about undermining leadership behaviour by confirming that younger leaders might show more undermining leadership behaviour than older leaders.
19
behaviour, it is in the best interest of organizations to prevent such behaviour. Results of the present research shows that age is negatively related with undermining leadership behaviour. Subsequently this might mean that younger leaders show more undermining leadership behaviour than older leaders. Therefore, in order to prevent undermining leadership
behaviour, organizations should consider appointing older leaders as older leaders might be less likely to show undermining leadership behaviour.
Strengths, Limitations and Recommendations Future Research
The present paper has some strengths. The first strength of the present paper is that contrary to most studies on power and leadership behaviour, participants of the present study were actual powerholders. An issue of manipulating power in a lab is the possibility that participants do not have any actual experience with possessing power. Consequentially, participants might behave in a way they assume powerholders behave, but which might be different from how powerholders actually behave. (Lammers, Stoker, & Stapel, 2010).
The second strength of the present paper is that undermining leadership behaviour was assessed by leaders’ subordinates, which reduced effects of social desirability. Humans have the tendency to present themselves in a socially desirable way, which can be problematic in studies concerning unethical behaviour. The problem arises that leaders might not be willing to admit that they show unethical behaviours which can lead to biased responses of
participants (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff, 2003). Asking immediate
subordinates about their leaders’ undermining leadership behaviour, can overcome this issue. However, asking subordinates to assess their leaders’ undermining leadership behaviour also provides some concerns. Although, participants were guaranteed complete confidentiality, the possibility still exists that subordinates were afraid that their leaders would see their answers. As previously mentioned, undermining leadership behaviour is associated with low mean ratings, implying that this might be a concern for all abusive leadership research.
20
combination with the rather low sample size, makes it difficult to find significant effects. Therefore, even though the present research did not find support for its hypotheses, it might be premature to conclude that power and power legitimacy do not interact to influence undermining leadership behaviour, and that this interaction is not mediated by leader’s power threats. Instead, future research should use bigger sample sizes to investigate whether there is support for the propositions of the present research.
The second limitation of the present research is that all participants worked in The Netherlands. This means that results of the current research might be less generalizable to other countries that have different cultural values. Previous research shows that cultural values influence leaders’ behaviour, how leaders are perceived, and what kind of behaviours and traits are deemed appropriate for effective leaders (Javidan, Dorfman, Luque, & House, 2006). To illustrate, in countries with high power distance, inequality in the power
distribution is accepted and supported by both leaders and their subordinates. On the contrary, in countries with low power distance, equality in power distribution is endorsed. According to Hofstede (2001), The Netherlands scores low on the dimension of power distance, which means that leaders’ power is questioned more in The Netherlands. Therefore, it might be possible that leaders in The Netherlands adopt more legitimizing myths in order to protect their power than leaders working in high power distance countries. Future research should investigate whether these cultural values might affect the relationship between power, power legitimacy and undermining leadership behaviour.
The last limitation of the present research is that some participants indicated that they were confused about the measurement of undermining leadership behaviour. Specifically participants mentioned that they were unable to answer the item: “How often has your supervisor intentionally talked bad about you behind your back?”. Even though there were only a few participants that mentioned the issue, the possibility exists that other participants were confused as well, which might have influenced their response. A solution to this issue for future research could be eliminating the item, or using other measures to assess
21
Maner and Mead (2010) researched if need for dominance affects whether powerholders work towards group or self-interested goals. Their results showed that when power was less stable, powerholders with a need for dominance worked towards self-interested goals instead of group goals. However, participants of their studies consisted of undergraduate students and future research should investigate whether social dominance orientation influences leaders’ undermining leadership behaviour using actual powerholders instead of students.
Conclusion
The present research attempted to increase the understanding about the antecedents of undermining leadership behaviour. Specifically, the present paper proposed that power is associated with increased levels of undermining leadership behaviour. The expectation was that power and power legitimacy interact to influence undermining leadership behaviour, mediated by leaders’ power threats. Nevertheless, the present paper did not find support for any of the expectations. Considering the negative effects of undermining leadership
22
REFERENCE LIST
Anderson, C., Willer, R., Kilduff, G. J., Brown, C. E. 2012. The origins of deference: when do people prefer lower status?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5): 1077-1088.
Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. 2003. Identity threat and anti-social behaviour in organizations: the moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 90(1): 195-208. Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Breaux, D., Perrewé, P., Hall, A., Frink, D., & Hochwater, W. 2008. Time to try a little tenderness? The detrimal effects of accountability when coupled with abusive supervision. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2): 111-122., Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. 2001. Relationship orientation as a moderator of the
effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2): 173-187.
Dasgupta, N. 2004. Implicit ingroup favouritism, outgroup favouritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17(2): 143-169.
DeCelles, K. A., DeRue, D. S., Margolis, J. D., & Ceranic, T. L. 2012. Does power corrupt or enable? when and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3): 681-689.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 331-351.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. 2006. The social context of undermining at work. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 101(1): 105-126.
Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. 1993. Effect of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality, 64(5), 766-778.
Emerson, R. M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1): 31- 41.
Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. 2009. When the boss feels inadequate: power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychological Science, 20(11): 1406-1413.
23 502-508.
Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. 2011. Power and overconfident decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2): 249-260.
Fiske, S. 1993. Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48(6): 621-628.
Flynn, F. J., Gruenfeld, D., Molm, L. D., & Polzer, J. T. 2011. Power in field: social psychological perspectives on power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4): 495- 500.
Frost, D. E., & Stahelski, A. J. 1988. The systematic measurement of French and Raven’s bases of social power in workgroups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 18(5): 375-389. Frazier, M. L., & Bowler, W. M. 2015. Voice climate, supervisor undermining, and work
outcomes: a group-level examination. Journal of Management, 41(3), 841-863. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. 1959. The bases of social power. Michigan: University of
Michigan Press.
Georgeson, J. C., & Harris, M. J. 1998. Why’s my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3): 184-195.
Georgeson, J. C., & Harris, M. J. 2000. The balance of power: interpersonal consequences of differential power and expectancies. Personality and Social Psychology, 26(10): 1239-1257.
Georgeson, J. C., & Harris, M. J. 2006. Holding onto power: effects of powerholders’ positional instability and expectancies on interactions with subordinates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4): 451-468.
Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 227-256.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Power and the
objectification of social targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1): 111-127.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. 2007. An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the
relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18: 252-263.
24
legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3): 376-399.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Cultures consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. 2006. In the eye of the beholder: cross-cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1): 67-90.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2): 265-284.
Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Galinsky, A. D. 2013. The good life of the powerful: the experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 24(3): 280-288.
Kipnis, D. 1972. Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1): 33-41.
Kouchaki, M., & Desai, S. D. 2015. Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: how anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit unethical acts. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2): 360-375.
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. 2008. Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19(6): 558-564.
Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. 2010. Power increases hypocrisy: moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behaviour. Psychological Science, 21(5): 737-744.
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., & Stapel, D. A. 2010. Power and behavioral approach orientation in existing power relations and the mediating effect of income. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40:543-551.
Ma, L. 2000. A comparison of the legitimacy of power between confucianist and legalist philosophies. Asian Philosophy, 10(1): 49-59.
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Social hierarchy: the self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.
Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. 2010. The essential tension between leadership and power: when leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 99(3): 482-497.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. 2013. A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1): 120-137.
25
Pratto, F., & Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. 2006. Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1): 271-320.
Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. 1997. The gender gap: differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36(1): 49-68.
Quist, R. M., & Resendez, M. G. 2002. Social dominance threat: examining social dominance theory’s explanation of prejudice as legitimizing myths. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(4): 287-293.
Rodriguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. 2000. Why do superiors attend to negative stereotypic information about their subordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception. European Journal of social Psychology, 30(5): 651-671. Rus, D., Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. 2012. Leader power and self-serving behavior: the
moderating role of accountability. Leadership Quarterly, 24: 13-26.
Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. 2005. When the pressure is up: the assignment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41: 192-200.
See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., & See, J. B. 2011. The detrimal effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2): 272-285
Serwinek, P. J. 1992. Demographic & related differences in ethical views among small businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(7): 555-566.
Sherman, G. D., Lee, J. J., Cuddy, A. J., Renshon, J., Oveis, C., Gross, J. J., & Lerner, J. S. 2012. Leadership is associated with lower levels of stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 44: 17903-17907. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. 1999. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social
hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. K., Jost, J. T., & Vijay, R. 2008. Legitimacy crisis? Behavioural approach and inhibition when power differences are left unexplained. Social Justice Research, 21(3): 358-376.
Tepper, B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289.
26
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. 2006. Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1): 101-123.
Turner, J. C. 2005. Explaining the nature of power: a three-process model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1): 1-22.
Williams, M. J. 2014 Serving the self from the seat of power: goals and threats predict leaders’ self-interested behaviour. Journal of Management, 40(5): 1365-1395. Willis, G. N., Guinote, A., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. 2010. Illegitimacy improves goal pursuit
in powerless individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2): 146-419.
27
APPENDIX A: Measurements Power
1. How much power do you have? 2. How much influence do you have? 3. How much status do you have? 4. How much authority do you have?
1. Hoeveel macht heeft u? 2. Hoeveel invloed heeft u? 3. Hoeveel status heeft u? 4. Hoeveel autoriteit heeft u? Power legitimacy
1. Let them know that you have the right to expect to have your orders followed.
2. Expect that your orders and requests will be carried out because you’re the boss and they will not question an order from a superior.
3. Expect them to follow your orders because they realize you probably have information they don’t have and therefor a good reason for issuing any order.
1. Ik mag verwachten dat mijn werknemers mijn instructies opvolgen.
2. Ik verwacht dat mijn werknemers doen wat ik zeg aangezien ik de baas ben.
3. Ik verwacht dat mijn werknemers doen wat ik zeg aangezien ik over informatie beschik welke zij niet hebben.
Power Threat
To what extent to do you experience any threat with regards to your… 1. status.
2. ability to access resources. 3. ability to exert power.
4. ability to achieve goals at work.
In hoeverre ervaart u enige bedreiging met betrekking tot uw… 1. Status op het werk.
28 3. vermogen om macht uit te oefenen op het werk. 4. vermogen om doelen te bereiken op het werk.
Undermining Leadership Behaviour
How often has your supervisor intentionally… 1. Hurt your feelings?
2. Put you down when you questioned work procedures? 3. Undermined your effort to be successful on the job?
4. Let you know they did not like you or something about you? 5. Talked bad about you behind your back?
6. Insulted you?
7. Belittled you or your ideas? 8. Spread rumors about you? 9. Made you feel incompetent?
10. Delayed work to make you look bad or slow you down? 11. Talked down to you?
12. Gave you the silent treatment?
13. Did not defend you when people spoke poorly of you?
Hoe vaak heeft uw leidinggevende bewust… 1. Uw gevoelens gekwetst?
2. U naar beneden gehaald wanneer u twijfelde aan werkwijzen? 3. Uw inspanningen om werk succesvol uit te voeren belemmerd? 4. U laten weten dat hij/zij u of iets aan u niet goed vind?
5. Slecht over u gepraat achter uw rug om? 6. U beledigd?
7. U of uw ideeën gekleineerd? 8. Geruchten over u verspreid? 9. U incompetent laten voelen?
10. Werk vertraagd zodat u minder goed overkomt of u vertraagd? 11. Neerbuigend tegen u gesproken?
12. U genegeerd door te zwijgen?
