ARE ORGANIZATIONS DOOMED TO HAVE EGOCENTRIC LEADERS? THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IN FOSTERING EMPATHY.
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Abstract
Empathy is more and more considered as an essential quality in today’s business world, particularly for leaders. Lacking empathy, namely not being able to accurately identify the feelings of others, can have disastrous consequences for people and businesses. Concurrently, research has provided alarming findings: high-power individuals are more likely to stereotype and less likely to take others’ perspectives and to experience empathy, despite their superior capacity to individuate others. Still, when power holders make use of this capacity or not remains uncertain. In this study, I argue that power can be associated with more empathy given the right organizational culture, in which norms promote a focus on others. Contrary to the hypotheses and regardless of the interaction with organizational culture, results showed no significant association between power and empathy. This research presents implications and
recommendations for future research that are subsequently discussed. Keywords:
Are organizations doomed to have egocentric leaders? The role of organizational culture in fostering empathy. Lacking empathy is not just a personal flaw; it can literally have devastating
consequences. One of the most appalling examples happened at France Telecom between 2008 and 2011, during the privatization process of the company. While tough reforms were conducted, the management did not acknowledge the emotional distress of the employees, which led to consequences as tragic as employees taking their own lives (Chabrak, Craig & Daidj, 2016). A lack of empathy can also negatively impact a business’ operations and reputation. The public backlash following the response of United Airlines’ CEO after the forced removal of a
passenger, as the CEO blamed the passenger for the situation, not only damaged the reputation of the company but also led to a seventy percent increase in complaints from customers (LeBeau, 2017). Generally speaking, a lack of concern, emotions and individuation of others may well “inspire enmity, bitterness and recipient rebellion” (Galinsky, Magee, Inesi & Gruenfeld, 2006).
Research has shown alarming findings in this regard: high-power individuals are less likely to take others’ perspectives, as they have “a reduced tendency to comprehend how other people see, think, and feel” (Galinsky et al., 2006, p. 1068). Thereby, they have more difficulty than low-power individuals to experience empathy. Individuals in powerful positions also tend to pay less attention to people with less power and to stereotype them more (Fiske, 1993). A lack of empathy from power holders within an organization is particularly concerning, because they are the ones who make the important decisions that will subsequently affect others. Therefore, it is important for organizations to find ways to remedy this issue.
opposite. High-power individuals indeed do have a superior capacity than low-power individuals to individuate others and focus their attention on them. However, they do not use this capacity unless they are provided with incentives to do so, or if the context requires it. These findings raise the following question: can high power individuals actually be more empathetic than low power individuals, and if so, when?
Surprisingly, research has not focused much on the conditions that can affect the
relationship between power and empathy (Hogeveen, Inzlicht & Obhi, 2014; Schmid Mast, Jonas & Hall, 2009; Galinsky et al., 2006). While some suggestions about potential moderators have been made (Kraus, Côté & Keltner, 2010; Galinsky et al., 2006; Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003;), they have not widely been investigated. As such, this research aims at deepening the understanding of the relationship between power and empathy and how this relationship varies depending on the organizational context.
More specifically, I propose that while power tends to induce less empathy, organizations are not doomed to have self-focus leaders. Indeed, if the organizational culture requires a focus on others, then power holders should focus their attention on others more in order to fit in and succeed, and as such could be even more able to recognize others’ emotions than low power individuals. I therefore argue that if organizations foster cultural components that are other-oriented, such as altruistic values, relation-oriented leadership, and low power distance orientation, they could tap into the power holders’ capacity to individuate others and even reverse the negative relationship between power and empathy.
By doing so, I contribute to the limited research on the conditions that affect the
to use their superior capacity to individuate and empathize with others in organizational contexts. Moreover, past research has mostly conducted experiments in which power is manipulated, regardless of the organizations in which participants work (see Hogeveen et al., 2014; Kraus et al., 2010; Galinsky et al., 2006; Snodgrass, 1982). By conducting a survey research, I aim at settling my study in line with the reality of current organizations.
Theory and Hypotheses Power
While the definition of power varies across social studies (Overbeck & Park, 2001), it is widely conceived as the capacity to influence others (Galinsky et al., 2006) and to “alter others’ states by providing or withholding resources and administering punishments”, with a large set of potential resources, material or not, and formal or informal (Keltner et al., 2003, p. 267). As a central aspect to social life (Keltner et al., 2003), power “fundamentally alters how an individual construes and approaches the world” and has collateral behavioral consequences (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson & Liljenquist, 2008, p. 1451). Indeed, having power leads
individuals to a psychological transformation in a way that makes them think and act to keep it (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
Empathy
empathic responses involve not only feelings but also thoughts about the perception of another person’s state (Grühn, Diehl, Rebucal, Lumley & Labouvie-Vief, 2008).
Empathy is essential for the formation and upholding of meaningful relationships (Kourmousi, Amanaki, Tzavara, Merakou, Barbouni & Koutras, 2017). In an organizational context, the fact that empathy can create an emotional bond between individuals may serve as a strategic purpose (Kilduff, Chiaburu & Menges, 2010). Being empathetic is indeed highly useful, because emotions convey various information, such as how an individual feels about certain things and other people, and what his or her social intentions are (Kilduff et al., 2010; Knutson, 1996; Fridlund, 1994; Ekman, 1993). As such, empathy is a particularly important trait for leaders, since “understanding what people want and how they perceive things makes it easier to select an appropriate influence strategy” (Yukl, 2010, p. 211) and therefore to be a successful leader.
Relationship between Power and Empathy
Many researchers have found that power is negatively associated with an understanding of others’ emotions (Kraus et al., 2010; Galinsky et al., 2006; Lee & Tiedens, 2001; Fiske, 1993; Snodgrass, 1982;). More specifically, Galinsky and colleagues (2006) found that power induces an impediment to experience empathy. Fiske (1993) identified three main reasons to explain this phenomenon: power leads to situations in which individuals may not need to pay close attention to others to reach their desired outcomes, cannot do so as their attention is already overloaded, or do not want to do so if they have highly dominant personalities. The findings that power holders tend to be “less sensitive and aware of others’ thoughts, feelings, and needs comparatively to low power people” (Lee & Tiedens, 2001, p. 61) can also be explained by the fact that power
Concurrently to these findings, social class (a concept closely related to power) determines emotional sensitivity as lower-class individuals have a “greater focus on the external social context” than on the self and as such are “more accurate at perceiving emotions during social interactions” than upper-class individuals (Kraus et al., 2010, p. 1720). More specifically, Kraus and colleagues (2010) conducted several studies in which they found that lower class individuals “scored higher on a measure of empathic accuracy”, “judged the emotions of a stranger more accurately” and “inferred emotions more accurately from subtle expressions in the eyes” than the upper social class individuals (p. 1721). Likewise, the more power individuals possess, the more selective they are in the information they take into account, and the more likely they are to ignore peripheral information that they deem useless (Guinote, 2007). For instance, individuals showed less attention to the contextual information when identifying the emotions of others when they had an elevated sense of control (Kraus, Piff & Keltner, 2009), suggesting that a sense of elevated power reduces individuals’ tendency to accurately understand the emotions of others (Kraus et al., 2010). As such, power holders end up often forming “relatively shallow
understanding of others” (Hogeveen et al., 2014, p. 756) and stereotyping others (Fiske, 1993). Overall, the theory that power induces impediment to experience empathy (Galinsky et al., 2006) is the starting point of this research and therefore constitutes the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Power is associated with decreased empathy. The Moderating Role of Organizational Culture
with low-power individuals (Overbeck & Park, 2001). A question ultimately arises from these findings: can power induce more empathy and if so, in which context?
Past research has not provided a clear answer but has suggested that when the context or the objectives of the individual requires a focus on and understanding of others, high-power individuals will use their superior capacity to accurately individuate others (Galinsky et. al, 2006; Overbeck & Park, 2001). As such, culture is thought to determine “when power leads to perspective taking and when it leads to egocentric self-focus” (Galinsky et al., 2006, p. 1073). More specifically, an organization’s philosophy regarding what it entails to be a leader plays a role in the way high-power individuals consider others: if “role expectations go beyond the interpersonal and include more organization-centered duties”, it would lead to less consideration of others’ individuation (Overbeck & Park, 2001, p. 559). The general philosophy of a company regarding its workers also impacts the way high-power individuals focus on others, and
differences in self or other focus were observed in highly product-oriented and person-centered contexts. In the former, the individuation of others was less needed, as workers were “more likely to be considered as “interchangeable cogs.” In the latter, a focus on others was needed because “being in power carries the responsibility to know people and to be able to elicit performance and growth from them” (Overbeck & Park, 2001, p. 563).
learned, shared, tacit assumptions on which people base their view of reality” and entails both descriptive and prescriptive assumptions of how things are and should be (Schein, 2009, p. 27). In a nutshell, it can be said that organizational culture is the “way of doing things” specific to a company or sub-unit (Dowling, Festing & Engle, 2017).
Therefore, I argue that the organizational culture in which individuals evolve, and more particularly the norms regarding how to treat and focus on others and what it entails to hold power, can either strengthen or lessen the relationship between power and empathy. I argue that when organizations have a culture in which a focus on others is expected, then power is most likely associated with increased empathy due to the power holders’ superior capacity to
individuate, remember, and focus their attention on others. In particular, I identified three main elements of organizational culture that are strongly related to a focus on others and
interdependence: altruistic values, relation-oriented leadership, and power distance orientation. Altruistic Values in the Organization
Organizational culture entails norms that reflect the social expectations from underlying values (O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991). A value that shares similarities with empathy, as it reflects a sense of caring for others, is altruism (Romani, Grappi & Bagozzi, 2013). Altruism translates into “helping behaviors” in reaction to “someone [who] has a problem, needs
Hypothesis 2: Power and altruistic values in the organization interact to influence empathy, such that power is associated with decreased empathy when altruistic values in the organization are low, while power is associated with increased empathy when
altruistic values in the organization are high. Perceived Relation-oriented Leadership
Culture shapes the leadership style that is considered appropriate in an organization (Schein, 2009). While there are many leadership styles, the two main approaches are task-oriented (transactional leaders) and relation-task-oriented (transformational leaders) (Yukl, 2010). It turns out that highly relation-oriented leaders are more likely to seek different perspectives and are usually considered as empathetic and good at appealing to the emotions of their subordinates (Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman & Humphrey, 2011). They also treat others with “individualized consideration”, which entails “providing support, encouragement, and coaching to followers” in a personalized way (Yukl, 2010, p. 276). Likewise, according to Overbeck and Park (2001, p. 563), organizations that are person-centered hold the belief that successful high-power
individuals need to “form accurate impressions” in order to be effective. Moreover, leaders who have a high relation orientation favor “the exchange of socioemotional resources” and group cohesion more than those who do not (Tabernero, Chambel, Curral & Arana, 2009, p. 1392). Thus, I formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Power and perceived relation-oriented leadership interact to influence empathy, such that power is associated with decreased empathy when perceived relation-oriented leadership is low, while power is associated with increased empathy when perceived relation-oriented leadership is high.
Another component of organizational culture that is identified as governing a focus on the self or on others is power distance orientation (PDO), which was initially conceptualized on the national level as “the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 227). Similarly, the level of PDO on the organizational level provides information about “the extent to which people accept an unequal distribution of power and status” within the organization (Yukl, 2010, p. 442). Most researchers have examined PDO on the organizational and individual levels (Kirkman, Lowe & Gibson, 2006) and the relevance of studying PDO on those levels instead of on the national level is particularly on the rise due to globalization (Zhang & Begley, 2011) as it deepens existing differences in PDO within nations (Kirkman et al., 2006). In this research, PDO is
conceptualized at the organizational level (organizational norms) but its assessment is made by individuals whose perceptions about the PDO in the organization may, by definition, vary.
Overall, a low PDO environment is one in which “people in lower power positions are more likely to believe that they should have a voice in decision processes” (Brockner et al., 2001, p. 302). On the contrary, “a superior is expected to make decisions without consulting his or her subordinates” in an organization with a high PDO (Khatri, 2009, p. 3). It can therefore be assumed that within organizations with high PDO, showing empathy at work is less encouraged because leaders are more independent and less likely to rely on subordinates for decision-making (Smith, Peterson & Schwartz, 2002). Conversely, there is more interdependence and less reliance on the self in decision-making processes within organizations with low PDO. Therefore, I expect power and PDO to interact to influence empathy as follows:
while power is associated with decreased empathy when power distance orientation is high.
The overall conceptual model of this research is depicted in Figure 1. FIGURE 1: Conceptual Model
Method Participants and Procedure
In order to test my hypotheses, I created an online survey in Qualtrics and distributed it throughout my personal and professional networks, primarily through posts with the link to the survey on LinkedIn and Facebook. The online survey was available in both English and French, and the invitation message attached to the post (mentioning among others the fact that
participants should be working in an organization) was also written in those two languages. I provided important information on the first page of the online survey, such as its length (approximately 10 to 15 minutes), its confidentiality (anonymous), and the voluntary nature of the participation. I gave my contact details (name and academic email address) at the end of the survey in order to address any potential question.
145 fully filled it in and submitted it. Of those 145 participants, 121 are currently working in a company, and therefore eligible for the survey. I removed one participant’s data from the dataset, as the person mentioned that they are the only employee in the company, so many items do not apply to their situation. Thus, I analyzed the answers of 120 participants in total.
Of those 120 participants, 92 were females (76.7%) and 28 were males (23.3%).
Participants’ ages varied from 20 to 62 years old, with a mean of 37.59 (SD = 12.13). In order to ensure inclusion, participants had the possibility to avoid the choice of a binary gender identity (namely, to choose “prefer not to answer” instead of solely “female” and “male”), but no participant has used this option.
In total, 20 nationalities (including double nationalities) and 16 “main countries of work” were reported. The complete details of the nationalities and countries of work can be found in the appendix A. Overall, 75.8% of the participants took the survey in French and 24.2% took it in English.
Regarding the company tenure, 37.5% of the participants have been working in the same company for 1 to 5 years, 20% for 11 to 20 years, 17.5% for 5 to 10 years, 15% for more than 20 years, and finally 10% for less than one year. When it comes to position tenure, 48.3% of the participants have been occupying the same position for 1 to 5 years, 16.7% have a position tenure inferior to one year, 16.7% also have a 5-to-10-year position tenure. Finally, 15.8% have a 11-to-20-year position tenure, and only 2.5% have been working in the same position for more than 20 years.
Measures
Power. Power was measured with the 8-item sense of power scale (Anderson, John & Keltner, 2012, p. 316). A 5-point Likert scale was used, ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. Example items are “I can get others to listen to what I say”, “My ideas and opinions are often ignored” (reversed score) and “If I want to, I get to make the decisions”. The scale was highly reliable (α = .87).
Altruistic values in the organization. In order to evaluate the altruistic values in the participants’ organizations, participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from “Not at all” to “Very much”) to what extent the five statement represent the norms within their organization. Example items are “Helping others who have been absent”, “Helping others who have heavy workloads” and “Always being ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/her” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990). The scale was highly reliable (α = .86).
Perceived relation-oriented leadership. In order to assess perceived relation-oriented leadership, participants were asked to indicate to what extent the five statements represent their organization’s norms, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Not at all” to “Very much”. Example items are “Backing up and supporting employees in a difficult situation”, “Giving employees credit for helpful ideas and suggestions” and “Consulting with employees to get their reactions and suggestions before making a decision that affects them” (Molero, Cuadrado, Navas & Morales, 2007). The scale was highly reliable (α = .89).
Power distance orientation. In order to measure power distance orientation,
necessary for a manager to use authority and power when dealing with subordinates” and “Managers should avoid off-the-job social contacts with employees” (Clugston, Howell & Dorfman, 2000). The scale was reliable (α = .76).
Empathy. Empathy was measured using 15 items from the Toronto Empathy
Questionnaire. A 5-point Likert scale was used, ranging from “Never” to “Always”. Example items are “I remain unaffected when someone close to me is happy” (reversed score), “I can tell when others are sad even when they do not say anything” and “I get a strong urge to help when I see someone who is upset” (Spreng, McKinnon, Mar & Levine, 2009). The scale was highly reliable (α = .80).
Control variables. Participants’ genders, ages, and tenures were considered as possible covariates. Cross-sectional studies on age showed a negative association between age and empathy, yet longitudinal studies did not support these findings (Grühn et al., 2008, p. 762). Gender has often been found to be associated with empathy, such that women are more
empathetic than men (Rueckert & Naybar, 2008; Christov-Moore, Simpson, Coudé, Grigaityte, Iacoboni & Ferrari, 2014). Position and organizational tenures were also expected to be control variables, since past research has shown that tenure is associated with more altruism (Stamper & Van Dyne, 1999), therefore it may be correlated with empathy.
Assumptions
statistic of approximately 1.80. There was homoscedasticity, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of studentized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of
multicollinearity was found, as the tolerance values were around .99, therefore greater than .10 and likewise the VIF values were below 10 (VIF = 1.02). No leverage value was greater than .20, and all values for Cook's distance were below 2. Normality was met, as assessed by a visual inspection of the Q-Q Plot. However, there was one studentized deleted residual greater than -3 standard deviations (SDR = -4.04) (Laerd Statistics, 2015). The analysis was conducted with and without the outlier. Since no significant difference was found, the reported analysis includes the outlier.
Preliminary Analysis
Table 1 depicts the descriptive statistics. As can be seen, contrary to Hypothesis 1, power was not significantly correlated with empathy (R = .13, p = .18). It is worth noting that even though the correlation was insignificant, it was positive, suggesting that power might in that case lead to more empathy. Interestingly, power was positively associated with altruistic values in the organization (R = .47, p = .00) and with perceived relation-oriented leadership (R = .50, p = .00), but it was negatively associated with power distance orientation (R = -.35, p = .00), all in
statistically significant ways.
The correlations between moderators imply that there seems to be patterns in the types of organizational cultures that were assessed. Indeed, altruistic values in the organization was positively correlated with perceived relation-oriented leadership (R = .67, p = .00) but negatively correlated with power distance orientation (R = -.35, p = .00). Perceived relation-oriented
Age did not correlate with empathy (R = -.09, p = .34), and was thus not kept as a control variable. The same applies to organization tenure (R = .02, p = .84) and position tenure (R = -.07, p = .42). As mainly supported by past research, empathy and gender significantly correlated, such that women reported to experience more empathy than men (R = -.18, p = .045).
Table 1
Main Analysis
In order to test the first hypothesis “power is associated with decreased empathy”, a hierarchical regression was run. The details of the regression model are reported in Table 2. The first model of the main analysis showed the prediction of gender to empathy (B = -.20, SE = .10, p = .045), and was significant (F(1, 118) = 4.12, p = 0.45). However, the addition of power to the prediction of empathy (Model 2) led to an insignificant increase in R2 of .02, F(1, 117) = 2.74, p = .10. It can therefore be concluded that the first hypothesis is not supported.
Table 2
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Empathy from Gender and Power
Model 1 Model 2
Variable B (SE) t p B (SE) t p
Moderation Analyses
Table 3
Moderation Analysis Results for Altruistic Values in the Organization
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables B (SE) p B (SE) p B (SE) p
Intercept 4.25 (.13)** .00 4.29 (.13)** .00 4.26 (.13)** .00
Gender -.20 (.10)* .045 -.22 (.10)* .03 -.22 (.10)* .03
Altruistic values in the organization
-.02 (.05) .65 -.01 (.05) .82
Power .079 (.05) .099 .08 (.05) .10
Altruistic values in the
organization x Power .05 (.04) .26
R2 .03 .06 .07
F 4.12* .045 2.36 .08 2.09 .09
∆ F 4.12* .045 1.46 .24 1.28 .26
Note. N = 120. * p < .05, ** p < .001
empathy (B = -.00, SE = .05, p = .97). Contrary to Hypothesis 3, the interaction effect between power and perceived relation-oriented leadership on empathy was insignificant (B = .01, SE = .04, p = .80). The addition of models 2 and 3 also did not significantly add value to the prediction of model 1, respectively F(2, 116) = 1.36, p = .26 and F(1, 115) = .06, p = .80. Therefore, the third hypothesis was not supported.
Table 4
Moderation Analysis Results for Perceived Relation-oriented Leadership
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables B (SE) p B (SE) p B (SE) p
Intercept 4.25 (.13)** .00 4.28 (.13)** .00 4.27 (.13)** .00 Gender -.20 (.10)* .045 -.22 (.10)* .03 -.22 (.10)* .03 Perceived relation-oriented leadership .00 (.05) .989 .002 (.05) .97 Power .07 (.05) .16 .07 (.05) .16 Perceived relation-oriented leadership x Power .01 (.04) .80 R2 .03 .06 .07 F 4.12* .045 2.29 .08 1.71 .15 ∆ F 4.12* .045 1.36 .26 .06 .80 Note. N = 120. * p < .05, ** p < .001
Table 5
Moderation Analysis Results for Power Distance Orientation
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables B (SE) p B (SE) p B (SE) p
Intercept 4.25 (.13)** .00 4.27 (.13)** .00 4.23 (.13)** .00
Gender -.20 (.10)* .045 -.21 (.10)* .04 -.20 (.10)* .05
Power distance orientation -.03 (.04) .55 -.04 (.05) .39
Power .06 (.05) .19 .05 (.04) .23
Power distance orientation
x Power -.07 (.04) .09 R2 .03 .06 .08 F 4.12* .045 2.41 .07 2.56* .04 ∆ F 4.12* .045 1.54 .22 2.87 .90 Note. N = 120. * p < .05, ** p < .001 Discussion
The aim of this research was to put light on the role of culture in buffering the harmful impact of power on empathy. Unexpectedly, it turns out that no significant impact of power on empathy was found, contrary to what has been found in past research. The interaction effects between power and the components of organizational culture were also not significant.
power, power would rather be associated with increased empathy. The same applies to
perceived-relation oriented leadership. Likewise, when power distance orientation interacts with power, power would rather be associated with decreased empathy, as expected.
Theoretical Implications
This research presents theoretical implications. First of all, while the results are not significant, a positive relation between power and empathy is suggested. Power was measured with the “sense of power” scale (Anderson et al., 2012), which assesses the power individuals report to have in their relationships with others at work, and not strictly objective measures. Therefore, it could imply that depending on the scale that is used to measure power, different results of empathy levels are obtained.
The fact that this research did not significantly confirm the interaction effects of power and culture on empathy may arguably be explained by the correlation between power and a decreased effect of social influence (Pitesa & Thau, 2013). The context, norms and social evaluations have been found to have a less significant impact on high-power individuals than on low-power individuals (Rus, Van Knippenberg & Wisse, 2010). At the same time, it seems that the context is particularly influential for the power holders “when it activates or produces their goals.” (Galinsky et. al, 2008, p. 1462). Even more so, power holders will be “more influenced by the situation than the powerless” if their goals are at stake (Galinsky et. al, 2008). The extent to which the goals or the preferences of the power holders are entailed in the organization culture were not captured in this study but constitutes an interesting path to explore. Nonetheless, the results of this present research implies that conforming to the organization’s norms is not a goal in itself for power holders. In other words, power holders do not see their own
fit significantly predicts job satisfaction and turnover intentions (O’Reilly et al., 1991). As such, it could be assumed that power holders have a lower need for social affiliation and are thus an exception to this rule and find other sources of job satisfaction and commitment than in their fit with the organizational culture.
Finally, gender was found to be a significant predictor of empathy, in the sense that women tend to be more empathetic than men. This result is aligned with most studies according to which females tend to report more empathy (Christov-Moore et al., 2014; Rueckert & Naybar, 2008) and altruism (Stamper & Van Dyne, 1999), which by definition is a close concept to empathy, as it reflects a sense of caring for others (Romani et al., 2013). Not all research,
however, have found clear correlations between gender and altruism (Organ & Konovsky, 1989), and the various definitions of empathy used across studies may cast doubt on the systematic link between gender and empathy (Lennon & Eisenberg, 1987). As such, this research confirms some studies on the topic and contributes to the literature on gender and empathy.
Practical Implications
This study presents several practical implications. First of all, it raises awareness regarding what empathy is, its strategic purpose, and how it can help or hurt an organization. Knowing more about empathy can benefit any professional, regardless of their position and sector of activity, as understanding others (whether it is subordinates, customers, managers, third parties, etc.) can be particularly helpful for a wide range of actions, from product development (Dandavate, Sanders & Stuart, 1996) to interpersonal relationships such as conflict management (Betancourt, 2004), and leadership endeavors (Yukl, 2010). It can be particularly useful for companies to assess empathy during selection procedures, especially as the workforce is
as such, empathy enables to understand others and therefore to collaborate in a better way (Madera, Neal & Dawson, 2011).
Secondly, the findings of this study suggest that women tend to be more empathetic than men. This prediction of gender on empathy can contribute to the discussions about breaking the glass ceiling (the invisible barriers to progression to high levels that are particularly targeting women) (Heneman, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2014), especially in positions in which empathy is highly needed. Companies may also want to raise awareness about this discrepancy between men and women and provide training to foster empathy among all employees, both men and women.
Limitations and Future Research
This study also presents several limitations. The first one concerns the measure of empathy, as studies have shown that data are almost “systematically biased toward respondents’ perceptions of what is “correct” or socially acceptable” and as such participants unconsciously present themselves in their best light (Fisher, 1993, p. 303) even though the online survey was anonymous. As the importance of soft skills and empathy in leaders is more and more considered as a prerequisite in the leadership field (Holt & Marques, 2012), participants’ self-reported answers may have been distorted in this regard. It might especially be the case for women who are expected to be empathetic (Lennon & Eisenberg, 1987), “to be kind and [to] feel responsible for others’ well-being” (Hoffman, 2008, p. 448) In other words, women may report more
topics of power, organizational culture and empathy, with a more objective nay more complete measure of empathy such as for instance neurological activity (Gerdes, Segal & Lietz, 2010) and if possible in a real organizational context.
A second limitation would be the measure of organizational culture, which also relied on the perceptions of participants. It can be assumed that the same organizational culture could be perceived differently by two employees of the same company, depending on a myriad of
characteristics (personality, experiences, tenure, position, etc.). It is particularly worth noting that the results showed a positive correlation between power and the perceived level of altruistic values and relation-oriented leadership as the norms of the organization, and a negative correlation between power and power distance orientation in the organization. This could be explained by the psychological change that is generated by power and that impacts the way individuals “perceive and act within the social environment”, such as a reinforced positive affect and attention to rewards in the environment (Keltner et al., 2003, p. 267). Future research about the relationships between power, organizational culture and empathy could take this factor into account by collecting large numbers of participants from the same companies, in order to have a more accurate and more objective measure of the organizational culture in which the participants evolve.
Thirdly, the sample consisted of 120 participants in total. Although this number was statistically sufficient for the analyses, there could be a lack of representation for all the strata in the society, especially as the participants were primarily drawn from my own network.
Finally, this research has not significantly shown that some components of the organizational culture can moderate the relationship between power and empathy. Future research has a lot to examine in this regard. When it comes to the influence of organizational culture on power holders, it may be important to take into account the extent to which they are compliant to norms and how much they need to fit in their environment. Another potential moderator could be the pressure experienced at work. Indeed, it would be in line with past research (Fiske, 1993) to suggest that the less time pressure, tight deadlines and attention overload power holders experience, the more they would be able to focus on others and to be empathetic. Finally, a potential moderator between power and empathy is an individual’s awareness of the importance of empathy. Not being aware of the benefits of empathy may not push power holders to make an extra effort in their relationships with others, while being aware of them may convince power holders to adopt different behaviors and to show more empathy. Conclusion
With the present research, I proposed that the relationship between power and empathy is moderated by organizational culture, and more specifically that a culture that fosters or hinders a focus on others could respectively either strengthen or reverse the negative relationship between power and empathy. It turns out that I did not find any support for the formulated hypotheses. As such, the question “Are organizations doomed to have egocentric leader?” still remains.
References
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The Personal Sense of Power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 313-344.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x
Balthazard, P. A., Cooke, R. A., & Potter, R. E. (2006). Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional organization: Capturing the behavioral norms that form organizational culture and drive performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(8), 709-732.
http://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610713253
Betancourt, H. (2004). Attribution-Emotion Processes in White’s Realistic Empathy Approach to Conflict and Negotiation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10(4), 369-380.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A., Chen, Z., . . . Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and Procedural Justice: The Influence of Power Distance on Reactions to Voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300-315.
http://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1451
Chabrak, N., Craig, R., & Daidj, N. (2016). Financialization and the Employee Suicide Crisis at France Telecom. Journal of Business Ethics, (139), 501-515.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2602-8
Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P. (2014). Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 604-627. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001
5-30. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00034-3
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioral Norms and Expectations: A Quantitative Approach to the Assessment of Organizational Culture. Group & Organization Studies, 13(3), 245-273.
Dandavate, U., Sanders, E. B., & Stuart, S. (1996). Emotions Matter: User Empathy in the Product Development Process [Abstract]. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 40(7). http://doi.org/10.1177/154193129604000709 Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and Behavioral
Theories of Leadership: An Integration and Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x
Dowling, P., Festing, M., & Engle, A. D. (2017). International Human Resource Management (7th ed.). London: Cengage Learning.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, Regulation, and Moral Development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665-697. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665
Ekman, P. (1993). Facial Expression and Emotion. American Psychologist, 48(4), 376-379. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.384
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303-315.
http://doi.org/10.1086/209351
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling Other People: The Impact of Power on Stereotyping. American Psychological Association, 48 (No. 6), 621-628.
Fridlund, A. J. (1994). Human Facial Expression: An Evolutionary View. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why It Pays to Get Inside the Head of Your Opponent: The Differential Effects of Perspective Taking and Empathy in Negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384. <
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x
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.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0012633
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, E. M., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and Perspectives Not Taken. Psychological Science, 17(No. 12), 1068-1074.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x
Gerdes, K. E., Segal, E. A., & Lietz, C. A. (2010). Conceptualising and Measuring Empathy. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 2326-2343. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq048 Grühn, D., Diehl, M., Rebucal, K., Lumley, M., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2008). Empathy Across
the Adult Lifespan: Longitudinal and Experience-Sampling Findings. Emotion, 8(6), 753-765. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0014123
Guinote, A. (2007). Behaviour variability and the Situated Focus Theory of Power. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 256-295.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701692813
Hoffman, M. L., (2008). Empathy and Prosocial Behavior. In M. Lewis, Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Feldman Barrett, L. Handbook of Emotions (3rd ed., pp. 440-455). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, Leadership and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 223-250.
http://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(80)90013-3
Hogeveen, J., Inzlicht, M., & Obhi, S. S. (2014). Power Changes How the Brain Responds to Others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 755-762.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0033477
Holt, S., & Marques, J. (2012). Empathy in Leadership: Appropriate or Misplaced? An Empirical Study on a Topic that is Asking for Attention. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 95-105. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0951-5
Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining Sample Size (PEOD-6, Program Evaluation and Organizational Development) (IFAS, University of Florida).
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, Approach, and Inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110(No. 2), 265-284. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265 Khatri, N. (2009). Consequences of Power Distance Orientation in Organizations. The Journal
of Business Perspective, 13(1), 1-9. http://doi.org/10.1177/097226290901300101 Kilduff, M., Chiaburu, D. S., & Menges, J. I. (2010). Strategic use of emotional intelligence in
organizational settings: Exploring the dark side. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 129-152. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.10.002
Values Framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285-320. http://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202
Knutson, B. (1996). Facial Expressions of Emotion Influence Interpersonal Traits Interferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20(3), 165-182. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02281954 Kourmousi, N., Amanaki, E., Tzavara, C., Merakou, K., Barbouni, A., & Koutras, V. (2017).
The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Reliability and Validity in a Nationwide Sample of Greek Teachers. Social Sciences, 6(2), 1-14. http://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6020062
Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., & Keltner, D. (2010). Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic Accuracy. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1716-1723.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610387613
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social Class, Sense of Control, and Social Explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992-1004. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0016357
Laerd Statistics. (n.d.). Hierarchical Multiple Regression SPSS Statistics: Assumptions. Retrieved May 17, 2019, from https://statistics.laerd.com/index.php
LeBeau, P. (2017, June 14). Airline customer complaints soar following terrible April. CNBC.
Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Is It Lonely At The Top?: The Independence And
Interdependence Of Power Holders. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 43-91. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23003-2
Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 234-246. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.63.2.234
Madera, J. M., Neal, J. A., & Dawson, M. (2011). A Strategy for Diversity Training: Focusing on Empathy in the Workplace. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(4), 469-487. http://doi.org/10.1177/1096348010382240
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008, November 11). The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Social Hierarchy: Origins and Consequences of Power and Status. IACM 21st Annual
Conference Paper. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1298493
Molero, F., Cuadrado, I., Navas, M., & Morales, J. F. (2007). Relations and Effects of Transformational Leadership: A Comparative Analysis with Traditional Leadership Styles. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 358-368.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600006624
O'Reilly III, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516. http://doi.org/10.2307/256404
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive Versus Affective Determinants of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157-164. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.157
Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When Power Does Not Corrupt: Superior Individuation Processes Among Powerful Perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 549-565. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.549
Determine the Effectiveness of Social Influences in Ethical Decision Making. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 635-658. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0891
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers' Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
http://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7
Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2013). Explaining Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Gratitude and Altruistic Values. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 193-206. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1337-z
Rueckert, L., & Naybar, N. (2008). Gender differences in empathy: The role of the right hemisphere. Brain and Cognition, 67, 162-167.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.01.002
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, 922-933.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.007
Schein, E. H. (2009). The Corporate Culture Survival Guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653
Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Cultural Values, Sources of Guidance, and their Relevance to Managerial Behavior : A 47-Nation Study. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 188-208. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033002005 Snodgrass, S. E. (1982). Women's Intuition: The Effect of Subordinate Role Upon Interpersonal
Sensitivity (pp. 1-37, Rep. No. BNS-80255522). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale Development and Initial Validation of a Factor- Analytic Solution to Multiple Empathy Measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 62-71. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802484381
Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. (1999). Diversity at Work: Do Men and Women Differ in their Organizational Citizenship Behavior? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 12(1), 59-76. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1999.tb00115.x
Tabernero, C., Chambel, J., Curral, L., & Arana, J. M. (2009). The Role of Task-Oriented Versus Relationship-Oriented Leadership on Normative Contract and Group Performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(10), 1391-1404.
http://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.10.1391
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
22(17), 3601-3617. http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.560877
Appendices
Appendix A: Participants’ Nationalities and Main Countries of Work
Nationality Number of Participants
(per Nationality)
French 87
Dutch 5
US Citizen 4
Greek; Italian 3
Belgian; Croatian; German 2
Brazilian/Dutch; British; Bulgarian; Ecuadorian/Mexican; French/Algerian;
French/Moroccan; Irish; Latvian/Greek; Lebanese; Spanish; Swiss; Tongan
1
Main Country of Work Number of Participants
France 87
Netherlands 10
Ireland 4
United Kingdom 3
Germany; Greece; Switzerland; United States 2
Austria; Botswana; Canada; Italy; Latvia; Luxembourg; New Zealand; Portugal
1
Appendix B: Details of the Online Survey Questions
Empathy (Toronto Empathy Questionnaire)
For each statement, please indicate to what extent it represents you when you are at work: 1. When someone else is feeling excited, I tend to get excited too.
2. Other people's misfortunes do not disturb me a great deal.* 3. It upsets me to see someone being treated disrespectfully. 4. I remain unaffected when someone close to me is happy.* 5. I enjoy making other people feel better.
9. I do not feel sympathy for people who cause their own serious illnesses.* 10. I become irritated when someone cries.*
11. I am not really interested in how other people feel.*
12. I get a strong urge to help when I see someone who is upset.
13. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I do not feel very much pity for them.* 14. I find it silly for people to cry out of happiness.*
15. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards him\her.” Note: The items with an asterisk are negatively associated with empathy (reversed scores).
Altruistic Values in the Organization
For each statement, please indicate to what extent it reflects the organizational culture (the norms) in your company:
1. Helping others who have been absent. 2. Helping others who have heavy workloads.
3. Helping orient new people even though it is not required. 4. Willingly helping others who have work-related problems.
5. Always being ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/her.
Perceived relation-oriented Leadership
For each statement, please indicate to what extent it reflects the organizational culture (the norms) in your company:
3. Giving employees credit for helpful ideas and suggestions.
4. Consulting with employees to get their reactions and suggestions before making a decision that affects them.
5. Providing employees with opportunities to develop their skills and show what they can do.
Power Distance Orientation
For each statement, please indicate to what extent it reflects the organizational culture (the norms) in your current company:
1. Managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates.
2. It is frequently necessary for a manager to use authority and power when dealing with subordinates.
3. Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees. 4. Managers should avoid off-the-job social contacts with employees. 5. Employees should not disagree with management decisions. 6. Managers should not delegate important tasks to employees.
Power
For each statement, please indicate to what extent it represents you when you are at work: 1. I can get others to listen to what I say.
2. My wishes do not carry much weight.* 3. I can get people to do what I want.
5. I think I have a great deal of power. 6. My ideas and opinions are often ignored.* 7. Even when I try, I am not able to get my way.* 8. If I want to, I get to make the decisions.
