HOW (UN)STABLE POWER AFFECTS LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS: A MODERATED MEDIATION ANALYSIS.
Master Thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
2 ABSTRACT
Given that no empirical studies have examined the influence of power on leadership behaviors, the purpose of this paper is to examine whether power is related with leadership. Based on earlier findings, I expected that unstable and not stable power, is associated with less ethical, more self-serving and abusive leadership behaviors and that this is mediated by power threat. I tested my hypotheses using a survey method under 23 leaders and 71 related subordinates. Results suggest an opposed effect, when powerful leaders perceive their power to be stable, less ethical and more self-serving and abusive leadership behaviors are
demonstrated, which is not shown when stability is low. A potential explanation for this is that leaders with stable power experience leader entitlement and feelings of invulnerability. Results imply that power corrupts only when power is perceived stable, which significantly differs from earlier research. Furthermore, this finding advocates that determining the right amount of stability for a leader is delicate, because too high levels of stability is potentially damaging. Further results and implications are discussed.
3 TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT 2 1 INTRODUCTION 4 2 THEORY 6 2.1 Power Consequences 6
2. 2 Power and Stability 8
2.3 Unstable Power and Ethical Leadership 10
2.4 Unstable Power and Self-Serving Leadership 11
2.5 Unstable Power and Abusive Leadership 12
2.6 Unstable Power and Power Threat 14
3 METHOD 15
3.1 Sample 15
3.2 Measures 16
3.3 Data Analysis 17
4 RESULTS 18
4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations 18
4.2 Hypothesis Test Leadership Behaviors 20
4.3 Hypothesis Test Power Threat 24
5 DISCUSSION 26
5.1 General Discussion 26
5.2 Theoretical Implications 28
5.3 Study Limitations and Future Research Directions 29
5.4 Practical Implications 30
5.5 Conclusion 31
4 1. INTRODUCTION
Power is a main element of leadership, because influence of a leader often emerges from control over resources. As such, by understanding the consequences of power, we can gain many useful insights in leaders’ behaviors (Mintzberg, 1983, Pfeffer, 1981, 1992). Power has been shown to corrupt, meaning that although leaders can use their power for the greater good, it is used to serve leaders’ own interests instead (Kipnis 1972, 1976). Surprisingly, we know little about how power influences leadership behavior. Current research fills this gap by empirically studying how power affects leadership behaviors.
Power, defined as an individual's relative capacity to modify others states by providing or withholding resources, has metamorphic effects on a leader, as power changes how a leader feel, think, and acts (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006, Galinsky, Gruenfeld & Magee, 2003, Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). In more detail, power causes leaders to act more on the basis of their own preferences and goals (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson & Liljenquist, 2008, Guinote, 2007, Smith & Trope, 2006), to be less externally constrained (Hirsh, Galinsky & Zhong 2011, Kraus, Chen & Keltner 2011) and to stereotype and denigrate their subordinates (Fiske, 1993, Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske & Yzerbyt, 2000, Kipnis, Castell, Gergen & Mauch, 1976). Overall, this research suggests that leaders’ power increases self-interested and abusive behaviors.
5 research suggests that leaders who perceive their power as unstable are likely to demonstrate unethical, self-serving and abusivebehaviors in order to secure their power.
A possible explanation for these effects is that leaders with unstable (vs. stable) power perceive their power is threatened. Maner and Mead (2010) argued that instability within the group hierarchy signals a leader of potential power loss, from which leaders might perceive their power is threatened and engage in actions to prevent this potential loss. This is in consistence with Williams (2014) claim, who further argues that threat causes leaders to display behaviors that are beneficial to secure their power.
In this paper, I propose that stability and power interact. Furthermore, that when power is unstable, less ethical leadership and more self-serving and abusive leadership is demonstrated, which is not shown when power is stable. Furthermore, I propose that power threat mediates these effects.
6 In light of these unanswered questions, the current research will (a) theoretically found the conceptual framework proposed, (b) present a correlational study with 23 leaders and 71 related subordinates and (c) present and discuss findings and indicate directions for future research.
2. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES 2.1 Power Consequences
Several theorists specify power as the capacity to influence others (Goldhamer & Shils, 1939), but Emerson (1964) argues that power is mainly about the dependence between actors. Emerson regards power as an attribute of a social relation, stating that power resides implicitly in the others dependency. I define power as an individual's relative capacity to modify others states by providing or withholding resources (Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). This definition fits the purpose of the current study best because it highlights the impact power holders can have on others. This capacity is used in different ways, leaders can use their power for a greater good but also to serve themselves (Kipnis, 1972, 1976). In a functionalist evolutionary perspective, groups need powerful leaders in order to achieve their goals, although at the same time subordinates are inherently susceptible for exploitation (van Vugt, Hogan & Kaiser, 2008). Whether this vulnerability of subordinates is used to exploit them depends on their leaders behaviors. Therefore, leaders have power over others because others depend on them and each leader might use this power in a different fashion.
7 increasingly act on the basis of their own preferences and goals (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson & Liljenquist, 2008, Guinote, 2007, Smith & Trope, 2006), experience a sense of entitlement (Cremer & van Dijk, 2004), stereotype the powerless (Fiske, 1993, Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske & Yzerbyt, 200), denigrate their targets of subordinates, (Kipnis, Castell, Gergen & Mauch, 1976) and are less externally constrained (Hirsh, Galinsky & Zhong 2011, Kraus, Chen & Keltner 2011). Furthermore, Magee and Galinsky (2008) found that power reduces awareness of others and their individuating features, unless those features are instrumental for power-holders to accomplish their goals. To sum up, leaders are transformed by their power which causes them to display more self-interested and disparaging behaviors.
Moreover, owning a certain amount of power is a very beneficial property for a leader. Because power is a main element of leadership, inherently all leaders have power (Williams, 2014). Possessing power gives a leader access to several material and social resources like friends, mates, respect, praise and admiration and is therefore associated with freedom (e.g. Cummins, 1998, Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989, Hollander, 1958, Sadalla, Kenrick & Vershure, 1987). Furthermore, powerful leaders are happier, healthier, less stressed and more satisfied with their jobs (Brown, Gardner, Oswald, & Qian, 2008, Marmot, 2004, Oshagbemi, 1997, Robie, Ryan, Schmeider, Parra, & Smith, 1998, Sherman, Lee, Cuddy, Renshon, Oveis, Gross & Lerner, 2012). Overall, power has many advantages for a leader which might lead to overall increased happiness.
8 motivated to maintain this gap and protect their privileged position within the group (Van Vugt, 2006, Van Vugt, Hogan & Kaiser, 2008). Therefore, powerful individuals make choices designed to increase their ability to retain power (Tetlock, 1981).
In conclusion, powerful leaders are transformed by their power to display more self-interested and disparaging behaviors. Although power can have negative consequences, it is very beneficial for leaders because it increases their overall happiness. Therefore, leaders are highly motivated to retain their power and might engage in profound behaviors to secure their hold on this precious property. But the amount of power a leader possesses might not always be stable. With the transforming, addictive and beneficial properties of power in mind, how will leaders behave when their power is unstable?
2.2 Power and Stability
Stability needs to be taken in consideration when thinking about how power affects leadership behaviors, because power can be more or less stable. Power is malleable (Sapolsky, 2005) and can be perceived unstable by leaders due to many factors, like group formation, change of the composition of the group and events that threaten legitimacy of those in power (Maner & Mead 2010). Accordingly, Jordan, Sivanathan and Galinsky (2011) claim that power cannot be conceptualized as a static entity but rather as a dichotomous variable. Stability is herewith defined as the magnitude of actual or perceived constancy in one’s currently possessed position or property (Cummings, 1980).
9 low power conditions. In other words, unstable power positions cause an increase in stress levels of a leader.
Next to stress, unstable and not stable power also influences behaviors. In general, power holders whose position is unstable behave in ways that secure their high-power position. Firstly, Georgesen and Harris (2006) studied how the positional instability of power holders influenced interpersonal behaviors. In their experimental study, they assigned participants randomly to a power role, boss or employee, and then the bosses were further assigned to a secure or insecure power role. Their results indicated that leaders hold negative attitudes towards and impressions of their subordinates. Leaders thought they deserved to be the boss more, reported more negative thoughts about their partner during the interaction, evaluated their subordinates and the interaction more negatively and allocated the employees less of the prize money.
Secondly, Case and Maner (2014) studied how leaders with unstable power undermine talented subordinates. They argue that leaders sometimes sabotage a talented subordinate by building alliances with other group members and decreasing cooperation in their team to protect their own power. Within their study, Case and Maner (2014) assigned participants to a stable or unstable role with high or low power and then engaged in several experiments. Results indicate that leaders created divisions among their subordinate by restricting the amount of communication among subordinates, physically sequestering subordinates, and preventing subordinates form bonding with one another interpersonally. These behaviors were only observed by dominance motivated leaders and the behaviors were only directed toward highly skilled, thus threatening, subordinates. These behaviors vanished when leaders were assured their power could not be lost.
10 and participated in several studies that measured whether they wielded their power for personal gain or group goals. In most cases leaders behaved consistent with group goals, but when their power was tenuous due to instability within the hierarchy, leaders high in dominance motivation prioritized their own power over group goals. Specifically, they withheld valuable information from their group, excluded a highly skilled group member and prevented a proficient group member from having any influence over a group task more than in the stable low power position.
Overall, this research shows that if power is unstable and not stable, leaders feel threatened. This threat triggers various behaviors that are aimed at protecting their own power, sometimes at the expense of subordinates and group performance. Leaders display unethical, self-interested, and abusive behaviors to secure their own power. These behaviors might have a severe impact on leadership behaviors as well. The present research examines the effects of unstable (vs. stable) power on three leadership behaviors, ethical, self-serving, and abusive leadership. I expect this to be mediated by power threat. In the next paragraphs the potential consequences of unstable power for these leadership behaviors will be discussed.
2.3 Unstable Power and Ethical Leadership
In accordance with Brown, Trevino and Harrison (2005) I define ethical leadership as the demonstration of normatively appropriate behavior through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such behavior to subordinates through two-way
11 level it is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior, psychological safety and negatively related to workplace deviance (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes & Salvador, 2009, Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009).
Although much research focused on its outcomes, less research is done on the antecedents of ethical leadership (Eisenbeiss and Giessner, 2012). However, known personal characteristics that increase ethical leadership are conscientiousness, emotional stability (Kalshoven, Den Hartog & de Hoogh, 2011), and moral identity (Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum & Kuenzi, 2012). The current research extends the previous by discussing power stability and power as an antecedent. Leaders are supposed to mainly focus on others’ interests, but Williams (2014) argues that when leaders’ power is at stake, a leaders’ focus shifts to that of the self. Moreover, leaders will do anything to keep their power, engaging in unethical leader behaviors to secure their power is therefore likely. Non ethical behaviors a leader might deploy are making decisions that are not serving the team, neglecting subordinates’ opinions and comments that don’t serve goals of the leader or if a leader breaches the trust of a talented subordinate to improve their own image. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated.
Hypothesis 1 Power and stability will interact to influence ethical leadership, such that power is only associated with decreasing ethical leadership behavior when one’s power position is unstable (versus stable). 2.4 Unstable Power and Self-Serving Leadership
12 of affective commitment and job satisfaction (e.g., Aquino & Thau, 2009, Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007, Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008).
Although insight in self-serving leadership are useful to decrease and potentially prevent it, there was not much attention for potential antecedents. One was provided by Decoster, Stouten, Camps and Tripp (2014), who found that employees’ organizational citizenship behavior is a determinant. Present research extends previous literature by examining whether unstable (vs. stable) power is an antecedent of self-serving leadership. When power is
unstable, leaders find it difficult to maintain focus on organizational aims because they are more focused on how their own position might be secured (Jordan, Sivanathan & Galinsky, 2011). This is in consistency with Maner and Mead (2010), who found that dominance motivated leaders that experience positional insecurity prioritize their own power over group goals. Furthermore, unstable power leads to more selfish behavior (de Cremer and van Dijk, 2005). Therefore, unstable power is expected to lead to more self-interested behaviors.
Hypothesis 2: Power and stability will interact to influence self-serving leadership, such that power is only associated with increased self-serving
leadership behavior when one’s power position is unstable (vs. stable). 2.5 Unstable Power and Abusive Leadership
13 turnover intentions, deviant behaviors (Robinson & Bennet, 1995) and irritations (Schat, Desmarais & Kelloway, 2006). When taking the consequences of such leadership behavior in consideration, it is important to understand when leaders are more likely to engage in these kind of behaviors.
Regarding the antecedents of abusive leadership, Folger and Skarlicki (1998) propose that factors in person and situation induce these behaviors. Known antecedents of abusive
leadership are authoritarian leadership style alone or in combination with supervisors’
perceptions of interactional justice (Aryee, Sun, Chen & Debrah, 2007). Within this research I extend the previous antecedents with unstable (vs. stable) power. Fast and Chen (2009)
showed that when leaders’ ego is threatened they display more aggression. In other words, when leaders experience threat, due to unstable power, they might act aggressive. Therefore, I assume that when power is unstable and not stable, leaders are threatened and display more abusive leadership behaviors.
14 focuses on the consequences for subordinates due to unstable power. Overall, the proposed interpersonal relations are viewed in figure 1.
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model power and stability on leadership behaviors
2.6 Unstable Power and Power Threat
Current research proposes that the interaction effect of power and stability on leadership behaviors is mediated by power threat. In line with earlier mentioned arguments (Jordan, Sivanathan & Galinsky, 2011, Maner & Mead, 2010, Williams, 2014), I propose that leaders with unstable but not stable power perceive power threat, and thus power threat has a mediating role, which is graphically viewed in figure 2.
Hypothesis 4 The interaction effect of power and stability on self-serving, ethical and abusive leadership is mediated by power threat.
FIGURE 2
15 3. METHOD SECTION
3.1 Sample
Data was gathered from an organization in the eastern part of the Netherlands that produces nutritional products for healthcare organizations. This plant employs approximately 330 persons, and is part of a large international organization. Its main focus is production, and thus the largest part of staff is practicing simple tasks and are low educated. Leaders on the other hand are doing complex tasks and are highly educated. Because this research was conducted within one company at one location, there is no need to control for potential differences between companies.
An online survey was administered to 24 leaders and to avoid mono source bias, 3-5 subordinates per leader were asked to cooperate (total of 91 subordinates). After two weeks, people that had not yet cooperated with the research received an reminder via email. This research was approved by top management, but they had no further role in gathering or stimulating response. Different questionnaires were distributed to leaders and subordinates, leader questionnaire included measurements of power, stability and power threat, while subordinate questionnaire involved measurement of their leaders’ self-serving, ethical, and abusive leadership behaviors.
Twenty-three leaders cooperated (a response rate of 96%), from which 87% were male and the mean age was 42 years (SD = 7.60). Their average organizational tenure was 8.97 years (SD = 7.40), with a mean of 2.41 years (SD = 2.72) in their current leadership function. 46.50% of the leaders’ educational level was ‘HBO’ and 47.90% was educated at a ‘WO’ level.
16 years (SD = 9.68). The largest part of the subordinates (49.30%) had an educational level of ‘Havo/Mbo’.
3.2 Measures
The survey was administered in Dutch and its measurement instruments were translated from English. The following measurements were used in the survey. Unless indicated otherwise, answers were given on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Power¹ was assessed by a self-report question filled in by the leader. This measurement was derived from Lammers, Stoker, and Stapel (2010) and was measured by one item asking participants their current management position, low (for example, team leader, department leader, team coach) middle (for example, BU director, district manager, location manager) or top management (for example, board of directors or chief officer).
Stability was measured by presenting a 6-cm (2.4-in.) vertical line and asking participants to indicate the stability of their position in their organization by clicking with their mouse on the appropriate point along the line. This line ranged from 0 (= very unstable) at the bottom to 100 (= very stable) at the top. This is a simple but robust measure, and is for example used to measure power in previous research (Lammers, Stoker, Jordan, Pollmann and Stapel, 2011).
Ethical leadership was measured with the scale developed by Brown, Trevinon and Harrison (2005). Examples items are ‘My leader has the best interests of employees in mind’ and ‘My leader makes fair and balanced decisions’ (α = .91).
17 leader did not put his/her own position at risk, even when this could have helped promote group goals’( α =.86).
Abusive leadership was assessed with a 15- item abusive leadership scale (Tepper, 2000). Items were rated on a scale from 1 (I cannot remember him/her ever using this behavior with me) to 5 (He/she uses this behavior very often with me). Examples items are ‘My leader tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid’ and ‘My leader breaks promises he/she makes’ (α = .74).
Power threat was self-assessed by leaders with a 4-item scale derived from Kouchaki and Desai (2014). Items assessed whether leaders ‘felt any threat at all’ from for example their status and ability to access resources ( α =.96).
Control variables that were considered are leaders’ age, gender as well as the length of the relation between the supervisor and subordinate (in years), as previous research has shown they can influence leadership behaviors (Aryee, Chen, Sun & Debrah, 2007, Erdogan & Liden, 2002, Ogunfowora, 2014, Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog & Folger, 2010, Zhu, Newman, Miao & Hooke, 2013).
3.3 Data Analysis
Because subordinates working under the same leader are exposed to a similar workgroup context, their ratings might not be independent of each other and thus might violate the assumption of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, which could result in a biased estimate of standard errors and invalid test statistics. For this reason, I applied hierarchical linear modelling analysis (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002), which is similar to how leadership behaviors are analyzed in the past (Chi & Liang, 2013, Lee, Yun & Srivastava, 2013, Miao, Newman, Yu & Xu, 2013, Philipp & Lopez, 2013). Data was not aggregated because of the small sample size. Next to that, all predictor variables were mean centered to
18 minimize multicollinearity among them (Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken, 2003, Aiken & West, 1991).
4. RESULTS 4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
The means, standard deviations and correlations between variables are presented in Table 1. Leaders reported their power as quite stable (M = 80.42, SD = 14.72) . Self-serving and abusive leadership were both rated very low, which is a known phenomenon in measuring these leadership behaviors (Harris, Kacmar & Zivnuska, 2007, Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler & Ensley, 2004). Subordinates rated their leaders relatively high in ethical leadership (M = 5.51, SD = .84).
Self-serving and abusive leadership were positively related, and both were negatively related to ethical leadership. Next to that, a mediation role of power threat is not possible because power threat and the dependent variables were not correlated. Interestingly, power is positively related with power threat, meaning that leaders high in power inherently perceive their power is threatened more. Furthermore, power is also related with abusive leadership, in other words, leaders high in power demonstrate higher levels of abusive leadership behaviors. Finally, all three control variables were correlated with at least one of the leadership
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Study Variable Intercorrelations
4.2 Hypothesis Test Leadership Behaviors
In order to test the hypothesis, mixed model regression analysis were conducted. Regression results for models with leadership behaviors as the dependent variable are summarized in table 2.
Ethical Leadership
In line with hypothesis 1, analysis revealed a marginally significant interaction between power and stability for ethical leadership behavior (B = .58, SE = .32, p < .6). However, contrary to hypothesis 1, simple slope analysis revealed that power is negatively associated with ethical leadership behavior when stability is high (+ 1 SD; B = -.70, SE = .29, p = < .05), while power is not significantly associated with ethical leadership behavior when stability is low (- 1 SD, B = .46, SE = .43, p = .30). Results are plotted in figure 3.
FIGURE 3
21 Self-Serving Leadership
In line with hypothesis 2, analysis revealed an interaction between power and stability for self-serving leadership behavior ( B = .32, SE = .12, p < .01). However, contrary to hypothesis 2, simple slope analysis revealed that power is positively associated with self-serving leadership behavior when stability is high (+ 1 SD, B = .36, SE = .11 p = < .01), while power is marginally negatively associated with self-serving leadership behavior when stability is low (- 1 SD, B = -.29, SE = .15, p = < .10 ). Apart from the interaction, there also is a main effect of stability on self-serving leadership (B =.21, SE = .09, p < .05), indicating that when stability is high, serving leadership is also higher. Moderated indirect effects on self-serving leadership are plotted in figure 4.
FIGURE 4
22 TABLE 2
Regression Analysis Results: Leadership Behaviors
Self-Serving Leadership¹ Ethical Leadership Abusive Leadership¹
Predictor B SE 95 % CI B SE 95 % CI B SE 95 % CI Baseline DV 1.34 .19 .95 1.73 4.81 .58 3.55 6.07 1.10 .11 .84 1.37 Power .04 .06 -.08 .15 -.12 .18 -.51 .27 .05 .03 -.03 .13 Stability .21* .09 .04 .38 .09 .22 -.37 .55 .09^ .05 -.01 .19 Power × Stability .32** .12 .08 .56 -.58^ .32 -1.26 .10 .19* .07 .05 .33 Age -.05 .07 -.20 .09 .13 .19 -.26 .52 -.01 .04 -.10 .08 Gender -.14 .16 -.47 .18 .69 .49 -.38 1.76 .03 .09 -.20 .26 Tenure .12^ .06 -.01 .24 -.20 .13 -.45 .05 .08* .03 .01 .15
Note. N = 71. Standardized regression coefficients are presented. ^ p <.10 * p < .05. ** p <.01
23 Abusive Leadership
In line with hypothesis 3, analysis revealed an interaction between power and stability for abusive leadership behavior (B = .19, SE = .07, p < .05). However, contrary to hypothesis 3, simple slope analysis revealed that power is positively associated with abusive leadership behavior when stability is high (+ 1 SD, B = .24, SE = .06, p = < .01), while power is not associated with abusive leadership behavior when stability is low (- 1 SD, B = -.14 , SE = .08, p = .13). Apart from the interaction, there is a marginally significant main effect of stability on abusive leadership (B =.09, SE = .05, p < .10), indicating that when stability increases abusive leadership also increases, although in a very small amount. Next to that, the longer the relation between the subordinate and a leader, tenure leader of subordinate, a small but significant increase in abusive leadership behaviors is observed (B = .08, SE = .03, p < .05).
FIGURE 5
24 4.3 Hypothesis Test Power Threat
Due to the absence of a correlation between power threat and the three leadership behaviors, a mediation effect of power threat is not possible. Nevertheless, in line with hypothesis 4, analysis did reveal a marginal significant interaction between power and stability on power threat (B = -1.24, SE = .68, p < .10; see Figure 6). Furthermore, simple slope analysis revealed that power is not associated with power threat behavior when stability is high (+ 1 SD, B = -.46, SE = .64, p = .48), while power is positively associated with power threat behavior when stability is low (- 1 SD, B = 2.15, SE = .96, p = < .05). Apart from the interaction, there also is a main effect of power on power threat (B = .84, SE = .39, p < .05), indicating that leaders with high power experience more power threat in comparison with leaders with low power. Furthermore, stability appears to be marginally negatively related to power threat (B = .97, SE = .46, p < .10), indicating that when stability increases, power threat decreases.
FIGURE 6
25 TABLE 3
Regression Analyses Results:
Power Threat Predictor B SE CI Baseline DV 3.54 1.32 .70 6.37 Power .84* .39 .02 1.67 Stability -.97^ .46 -1.95 .00 Power × Stability -1.24^ .68 -2.70 .22 Age .029 .36 -.74 .80 Gender -.96 1.11 -3.25 1.52
26 5. DISCUSSION
5.1 General Discussion
Previous literature shows that power and leadership are related, but surprisingly the effect of power on leadership behaviors was never researched. The aim of this paper was to examine this relation between power and leadership and the moderating role of stability. To the best of my knowledge, the current study was the first research that empirically tests this interaction of power and stability and its consequences for leadership behaviors. The findings from this study suggest that power and stability indeed affect leadership behaviors. However, the empirical test of these hypotheses also generated results that were not in line with my expectations. Below I will discuss the findings in more detail, connect them to the four hypothesis and show how the findings complement prior studies.
First, I expected ethical leadership to be lower when power was unstable than when it was stable. Results show, however, that power is negatively associated with ethical leadership when power is stable. Second, I hypothesized that when power was unstable self-serving leadership would be higher than when it was stable. However, results indicate that
self-serving leadership is higher when power is stable. Third, abusive leadership was hypothesized to increase when power is unstable, but results demonstrate that abusive leadership instead is higher when power is stable. These findings demonstrate that leaders behave less ethical and more self-serving and abusive when their power was in fact stable.
27 Next to that, experimental findings of the interaction of power and stability suggested that when power was unstable it increased self-interested behaviors. Empirical results in this study show an opposed effect. This might be due to the fact that self-interested behaviors in an experimental research are beneficial for a person, because it is a short-term situation. While in organizations leaders might not benefit from behaving in such a way, because on the long term they might be confronted with their actions. If they act abusive, self-serving or unethical, they might lose their power position after all.
Second, one hypothesis regarding unstable power is supported by this research. Opposed to my expectation, unstable power is associated with lower levels of self-serving leadership. In other words, when leaders’ power is unstable, leaders act more socially desirable than when their power is stable. The sociologists Hamilton and Biggart (1985) provide a potential explanation by stating that in hierarchical relations, leaders are also required to obey obligations and behaviors associated with their position, an implicit social contract (Boehm, 1999, van Vugt, 2006). If a leader does not act in consistency with the scripts of his or her role, than he or she is likely to lose the confidence of the organizations which might result in a removal of that leader. This might be explaining why leaders with unstable power, that thus perceive their power already is at stake, are motivated to behave according to general expectations as a strategy to prevent actual power loss.
Third, results demonstrate that unstable power and its consequences for leadership behaviors is not mediated by power threat. However, power threat did show a significant increase when power was unstable. In other words, although results did not show a relation between power threat and the discussed leadership behaviors, it is a consequence of unstable power.
28 of power are associated with high power threat. This is an interesting finding, because power was often positively related to various beneficial outcomes, although high power causes threat perceptions at the same time. Furthermore, this research provides empirical foundation for the consequences of solely perceived stability on leadership behaviors. Stability has a direct effect on self-serving and abusive leadership, in such a way that when leaders perceive their position as stable they display high levels of self-serving and abusive leadership. This means that regardless of the level of power of a leader, when it is perceived stable, destructive leadership behaviors are demonstrated. Another finding that could be useful is that power is correlated with abusive leadership. Suggesting that when power of a leader is high, the level of abusive leadership is rated high by subordinates, which seems to be in line with previous findings that power corrupts.
5.2 Theoretical Implications
Although the findings are indefinite and need further research, the present findings potentially have important implications for theories of power and leadership. First and foremost, this research suggests that stable power might be associated with less ethical and more self-serving and abusive leadership. Therefore, the interaction of power and stability of a leader should be taken into account in studying leadership behaviors. Moreover, solely perceived stability appears to increase self-serving and abusive leadership behaviors. Implying that if leaders perceive their power is very stable, regardless of their power level, they display self-serving and abusive leadership behaviors that can severely damage
29 Second, when leaders perceive their power is unstable, they feel threatened. Earlier research has demonstrated that unstable power leads to higher stress levels and threat (Jordan, Sivanathan & Galinsky, 2011, Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005). Although current research was unable to relate this threat to leadership behaviors, power threat and the associated stress levels might still have implications for leader behaviors, wellbeing and performance.
5.3 Study Limitations and Future Research Directions
Limitations of the present research provide valuable avenues for future research. A first limitation concerns the research design. Although data suggests certain relations, due to the low sample size these must be validated using larger samples. Furthermore, the data used in this research was derived from one context, results might therefore not be generalizable. Next to that, in rating leadership behaviors I solely relied on follower ratings, given that the leadership behaviors were modeled as observable behaviors and that most leadership research involves follower ratings of leaders, I belief that the choice for others’ ratings was
appropriate, but future research could extend this with self-ratings. Overall, future research could benefit by enlarging the sample size and validate it in different contexts to support or refute the current findings.
30 Inherent in correlational studies, one cannot claim causality. Although earlier
mentioned arguments advert to an interaction effect of power and stability on leadership behaviors, it might also be that damaging leadership behaviors induce reactions in leaders’ environment that reduce the stability of leaders’ power. Experimental research should be undertaken to learn more about the causality of these leadership behaviors.
Another line of research could be aimed at finding out what the consequences of power threat for leadership behaviors are. For example, threat might be influencing individual performance, job satisfaction, intergroup cooperation or even lead to stress related diseases like burnout.
5.4 Practical Implications
Although conclusions regarding practical implications are to be regarded as tentative and as requiring further inquiry and clarification, I see potential for the findings to be used in applied settings. Stability of the hierarchy within an organization is important to consider, because it influences leaders’ threat perceptions and self-serving, abusive and ethical leadership behaviors. A hierarchy where leaders are very sure their position cannot be lost appears to be potentially damaging. Therefore, although earlier researches advised a moderate amount of stability (Maner & Mead, 2010), this research suggests that low amounts of
stability are desirable. The goal for managers is to identify the level of power instability that represents the best compromise between increased desirable leadership behaviors,
competition and motivation to work harder, and on the other hand resulting negative affect and behaviors that are ultimately counterproductive (Georgesen & Harris, 2006).
31 agreements with longer time horizons were suggested to be beneficial (Jordan, Sivanathan and Galinsky, 2011), this might also be done with a more temporal approach. Organizations could appoint a leader for a predetermined period and clearly mention this temporal character beforehand.
5.5 Conclusion
Within this research I have empirically connected power and leadership, in such a way that when leaders perceive their power as stable they display less ethical and more
32 6. REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511-536.
Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target‘s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717-741.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.
Barkow, J. (1989). Darwin, sex, and status. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Boehm, C. (1999), Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Brown, G. D. A., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. J., & Qian, J. (2008). Does wage rank affect employees’ well-being? Industrial Relations, 47: 355-389.
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and Unethical Leadership: Exploring New Avenues for Future Research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583-616.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134.
33 Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187–219.
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 912-922.
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.
Chi, S. S., & Liang, S. (2013). When do subordinates' emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates' emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 125-137.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Cummings, E. M. (1980). Caregiver stability and day care. Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 31-37.
Cummins, D. (1998). Social norms and other minds: The evolutionary roots of higher cognition. In D. Cummins & C. Allen (Eds.), The evolution of mind (pp. 30-50). New York: Oxford University Press.
De Celles, K.A., De Rue, D.S., Margolis, J.D. and Ceranic, T.L. (2012) Does Power Corrupt or enable? When and Why Power Facilitates Self-Interested Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 681-689.
34 Journal Of Social Psychology, 35(4), 553-563.
de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: Implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 913-926.
Decoster, S., Stouten, J., & Tripp, T. M. (2014). Followers' reactions to self-serving leaders: the influence of the organization's budget policy. American Journal Of Business (Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 29(3/4), 202-222.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18: 207-216.
Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Giessner, S. R. (2012). The emergence and maintenance of ethical leadership in organizations: A question of embeddedness?. Journal Of Personnel Psychology, 11(1), 7-19.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy Of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.
Emerson, R. M. (1964). Power-dependence relations: Two experiments. Sociometry, 27(3), 282-298.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader/member exchange theory. In L. Neider & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. (2009). When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1406-1413.
35 social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689−723.
Fiske, J. (1993). Power plays, power works. New York: Verso.
Flynn, F. J., Gruenfeld, D., Molm, L. D., & Polzer, J. T. (2011). Social psychological perspectives on power in organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 495-500.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). A popcorn metaphor for employee aggression. In R. W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly, J. M. Collins, R. W. Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly, J. M. Collins (Eds.) , Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 43-81). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Frank, R. H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From Power to Action. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology,85(3), 453-466.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450-1466.
Georgesen, J. J., 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.
Gerbasi, M. E., & Prentice, D. A. (2013). The self- and other-interest inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105: 495-514.
36 Intergroup Relations,3(3), 227-256.
Guinote, A. (2007). Power and goal pursuit. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1076-1087.
Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Mast, M. S. (2006). Recall of nonverbal cues: Exploring a new definition of interpersonal sensitivity.Journal Of Nonverbal Behavior, 30(4), 141-155. Hamilton, G. G., & Biggart, N. W. (1985). Why people obey: Theoretical observations on
power and obedience in complex organizations. Sociological Perspectives, 28(1), 3-28. 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(3), 252-263.
Goldhamer, H., Shils, E. A. (1939) Types of Power and Status, American Journal of Sociology, XLV, 171-172
Hirsh, J. B., Galinsky, A. D., & Zhong, C. (2011). Drunk, powerful, and in the dark: How general processes of disinhibition produce both prosocial and antisocial behavior. Perspectives On Psychological Science, 6(5), 415-427.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit.Psychological Review, 65(2), 117-127.
Jordan, J., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Something to Lose and Nothing to Gain: The Role of Stress in the Interactive Effect of Power and Stability on Risk Taking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 530-558.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D., & De Hoogh, A. (2011). Ethical Leader Behavior and Big Five Factors of Personality. Journal Of Business Ethics, 100(2), 349-366.
37 Journal Of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85-117.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1991). Whatever happened to the philospher-king? The leader's addiction to power. Journal of management studie, 28, 339-351.
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33–41.
Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kipnis, D., Castell, P. J., Gergen, M., & Mauch, D. (1976). Metamorphic effects of power. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 127-135.
Kouchaki, M., & Desai, S. D. (2015). Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: How anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit unethical acts. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 360-375.
Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. (2011). The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 974-980.
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(3), 543-551.
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., Jordan, J., Pollmann, M., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases infidelity among men and women. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1191-1197.
38 abusive supervision and creativity in South Korea. Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 724-731.
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.
Marmot, M. 2004. The status syndrome: How social standing affects our health and longevity. New York: Holt.
Maslow, A. (1937). Dominance-feeling, behavior and status. Psychological Review, 44, 404 – 429.
Mayer, D. M, M. Kuenzi, R. Greenbaum, M. Bardes & R. Salvador: (2009), ‘How Low Does ethical Leadership flow? Test of a Trickle-Down Model’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108, 1–13.
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 151-171.
Mead, N. L., & Maner, J. K. (2012). On Keeping Your Enemies Close: Powerful Leaders Seek Proximity to Ingroup Power Threats.Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 102(3), 576-591.
39 Mintzberg, H. (1983) Power in and Around Organisations. Englwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall
Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 157–170.
Ogunfowora, B. (2014). It’s all a matter of consensus: Leader role modeling strength as a moderator of the links between ethical leadership and employee outcomes. Human Relations, 67(12), 1467-1490.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997). The influence of rank on the job satisfaction of organizational members. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12: 511-519
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press
Philipp, B. U., & Lopez, P. J. (2013). The Moderating Role of Ethical Leadership: Investigating Relationships Among Employee Psychological Contracts, Commitment, and Citizenship Behavior. Journal Of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(3), 304-315.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259–278.
Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
40 between job level and job satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 23: 470-495.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572. Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader power and leader self-serving
behavior: The role of effective leadership beliefs and performance information. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 922-933.
Sadalla, E., Kenrick, D., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730-738.
Sapolsky, R. M. (2005). The Influence of Social Hierarchy on Primate Health. Science, 308(5722), 648-652.
Schat, A. C. H., Desmarais, S., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Exposure to workplace aggression from multiple sources: Validation of a measure and test of a model. Unpublished manuscript, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 192-200.
Sherman, G. D., Lee, J. J., Cuddy, A. J. C., 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, 109: 17903-17907.
41 Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy Of Management
Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationships between coworkers' organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees' attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455−465.
Tetlock, P. E. (1981). The influence of self-presentational goals on attributional reports. Social Psychology Quarterly, 41, 300-311.
Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the relationships with the Full Range Leadership Model, employee outcomes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 533–547.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review. Journal Of Management, 32(6), 951-990.
Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary Origins of Leadership and Followership. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 10(4), 354-371.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-196.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286.
Williams, M. J. (2014). Serving the Self From the Seat of Power: Goals and Threats Predict Leaders’ Self-Interested Behavior.Journal Of Management, 40(5), 1365-1395.
