The Relation Between Power And Undermining Leadership The Mediating Role Of Distrust
University of Groningen Research Paper for Pre-MSc HRM
EBS013A10
Date (25-05-2020)
Bas Buitenhuis S4185765
i.b.buitenhuis@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: dr. Sanne Feenstra
Abstract
Organizations struggle with undermining behavior. Undermining leadership has not only negative influence on the self-esteem of an employee, it can also lower the overall performances of employees. Considering the detrimental consequences of undermining leadership it is important to understand why this behavior occurs, what thrives a supervisor to act in a undermining way. Therefore, this study examines the role of power for undermining leadership. Specifically, I propose that the positive relation between power and undermining leadership is mediated by distrust. This study uses data of 139 supervisors and their direct reports from various institutions. I found no support to indicate that power is associated with increased undermining leadership. The current work found support that the relation between sense of power and undermining leadership is mediated by distrust. However, distrust mediates a negative relation and is therefore contradicting my expectations. This research provides theoretical and practical implications about my findings.
Keywords:
Sense of Power; Hierarchical Power; Distrust; Undermining Leadership
Introduction
Undermining leadership is a well-known topic in literature, many research into undermining leadership have led to a notorious reputation. Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, and Pagon (2006) suggest that undermining leadership is related with increased intentions to quit the job, counterproductive behaviors, depression and with decreased job satisfaction of the employees. Literature indicates further that undermining leadership is positively related to turnover intentions of employees (Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Rubenstein, & Song, 2013) and that undermining leadership influences indirectly the overall performances of employees through the mediations mechanisms of employee self-esteem and creativity of the employee (Eissa, Chinchanachokchai, & Wyland, 2017).
Organizational behavior researchers agree that undermining leadership leads to detrimental consequences (Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Picollo, 2015). These consequences indicate that it is of vital importance to understand why undermining leadership behavior occurs. Therefore, it is important to gain knowledge about this topic, and to examine the predictors of undermining leadership.
Scholars have devoted considerable attention to identifying outcomes of undermining leadership (Duffy, et al., 2006; Kammeyer-Mueller, et al., 2013; Eissa, et al., 2017; Frazier &
Bowler, 2015). In contrast less research has examined the antecedents of undermining
leadership. Power is an important predictor of undermining leadership since, people in power positions are more likely to protect their power (Fehr, Hernz, & Wilkening, 2013) and leaders who are focused on protecting their power are considered more likely to behave in a
undermining way (Case & Maner, 2014). Therefore the first aim of the present research is to show that power is positively associated with undermining leadership.
Building on power as an important predictor of undermining leadership, there is little research that explains why leaders who want to protect their power behave in a undermining
way. Therefore the second aim of this research is to show why leaders undermine their subordinates. I propose distrust as a reason why leaders in power positions express
undermining behavior. Power holders who feel threatened are more likely to distrust others (Feenstra, Jordan, Walter, & Stoker, 2020) and undermining leadership is examined mostly towards highly threatened subordinates (Case & Maner, 2014). Considering this
argumentation, I think distrust can play a crucial role in the association between power and undermining leadership. Hence, I aim to show that power is associated with increased distrust and that distrust is associated with increased undermining leadership behavior.
This research extends previous research on distrust and undermining leadership. This study moves towards a better understanding of this construct by introducing distrust as possible reason why powerholders undermine others. Previous literature showed that distrust might be a consequence of a heightened resource-control goal (Mooijman, Van Dijk,
Ellemers, & Van Dijk., 2015). Focus on their own resources makes powerholders cynical about others’ generous acts (Inesi, Gruenfeld, & Galinsky, 2012). The current work extents previous research by examining outcomes that resource-protection strategy might have. In particular, I investigate if this strategy affects undermining behavior of supervisors.
This research has important implications for management of businesses, as the present research informs organizations why about antecedents of undermining leadership. This knowledge enables management and HR to recognise dangers for undermining leadership earlier. Management of organizations and the HR department can, with that knowledge of the predictors invest in eliminating these determinants of undermining leadership.
I use survey data to examine the hypotheses. Data was generated by completed questionnaires from supervisors and their corresponding direct reports. The supervisors have answered questions about their power position and questions about their direct reports. The direct reports have answered questions about their place in the organization and the relation
they have with their supervisor. In this way, data is gathered about predictors and outcomes of power.
Figure 1: Predicted mediation role of distrust in the relation between power and undermining leadership: power is positively associated with distrust and in turn, distrust is associated with increased undermining leadership.
Theory and Hypothesis Definitions
In this section I will define the essential constructs of this research paper, namely power, distrust and trust, and what is understood with undermining leadership. These constructs make up the mediation model of this research.
Power. I define power as asymmetric control over valued resources (Emerson, 1962;
Magee & Galinsky, 2008). The valued resources can be monetary (e.g., ability to grant salaries), social (e.g., ability to grant inclusion in respected teams), or physical (e.g., ability to grant office space) (Mooijman, Van Dijk, Van Dijk, & Ellemers., 2019). Power is inherently a relational construct because it captures the relative state of dependence between two or more parties (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). The low-power party is dependent upon the high-power party to obtain certain valued resources.
Power has been differentiated from leadership, status and authority (Anderson &
Berdahl, 2002). This is because leadership, status and authority are social roles that give individuals power. In general, leaders obtain power when group members give them control over group resources and punishments that contribute to the effectiveness of the leadership (Gibb, 1985).
Distrust. Previous literature has argued two critical elements from which distrust is built (Bijlsma-Frankema, Sitkin, & Weibel, 2015). First element, distrust consists of negative expectations toward others’ intentions and behaviors (Lount & Pettit, 2012). Second, these negative expectations lead to unwillingness of an individual to make him- or herself vulnerable to the other person by relying on them (McKight & Chervany, 2001; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Building on this conceptualization, I state that distrust involves negative expectations toward others and, thus, a pronounced unwillingness to make him- or herself vulnerable by relying on others.
This study combines two aspects of negative expectations (distrusting beliefs
(McKnight & Chervany, 2001)), which are distrust in the benevolence and the ability of the employee. Distrusting belief in benevolence is the extent to which one is not believed to want to do good for the other (Mayer & Davis, 1999). Distrust in ability includes the perception which one believes the other person does not have the ability or power to do for one what one needs done (McKnight & Chervany, 2001).
Undermining Leadership. In this research I follow the definition of Duffy, Ganster, and Pagon (2002) about supervisor behavior and define undermining leadership in a work context as leadership behavior intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favourable reputation.
Undermining leadership is strongly related to social undermining. Undermining leadership is always in a social context where one undermines a person or group. Domain of social
undermining include active and passive behavior with intentions to weaken a target by degrees (Duffy et al. 2006).
Relationship between Power and Undermining Leadership
The asymmetric control over valued resources is considered beneficial. Power can boost the self-esteem of a person (Wojciszke & Kujalowicz-Struzynska, 2007), and can
reduce experiences of social constraints (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Previous literature indicates that high-power people experience more positive and less negative
emotions than people with less power (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Langner & Keltner, 2008).
Due to these beneficial consequences, high-power people want to maintain and protect their power position (Fehr et al., 2013). One way to protect power is by defending it. One examined way of protecting power is undermining the cohesion of a group (Case & Maner, 2014). These behaviors were only observed among dominance-motivated leaders and only toward highly-skilled subordinates.
Literature has examined the corrupting effects of power. Kipnis (1972) examined that power increases the likelihood that an individual will attempt to influence and manipulate others. Caused by the influence to influence others, holders of powers come to a belief they are personally responsible for behavior of their subordinates and devalued their subordinates (Kipnis, Castell, Gergen, & Mauch, 1976). Negative expectations regarding a subordinate can lead to a thought to ‘be the boss more’, reporting negative thoughts toward the subordinate and lower the evaluation of the subordinate and the interactions (Georgesen & Harris, 2006).
Findings that indicate that power increases negative expectancies toward subordinates (Georgesen & Harris, 2006) and devaluating subordinates (Kipnis et al., 1976) leading to the likelihood to influence and manipulate others (Kipnis, 1972). This influencing and
manipulating behavior seems to be in line with intentions to weaken a target by degree (Duffy et al., 2006). Considering the corrupting effects of power and the strong connection between corrupting power and undermining leadership it is logical to expect a positive association between power and undermining leadership. Therefore, I propose that power is positively related to undermining leadership.
Hypothesis 1: Power is positively associated with undermining leadership
Mediating role of Distrust
Being vulnerable implies that there is something important to be lost (Mayer et al., 1995). Being vulnerable is taking a risk. Trust however, is not taking risk per se, but rather it is a willingness to take risk. The willingness of being vulnerable is not a risk, but risk is the behavioral manifestation of the willingness to be vulnerable. Therefore risk avoidance is a result of distrust. Distrust will lead to avoiding risk in a relationship.
As described in the previous section, high-power individuals want to protect their power (Fehr et al., 2013). A way in which people can lose their power position over valued resources is to be too trustful to others (Mooijman et al., 2015). This is because trust entails an expectation of benign behavior from others (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007), taking the goodness of an individual as a starting point, which makes a person vulnerable.
Leaders who are interested in protecting their power may seek to undermine positive group processes (Case & Maner, 2014). Distrust is a result of leaders who want to protect their power (Mooijman et al. 2015; Colquitt et al., 2007; Mooijman et al., 2019). The willingness of being vulnerable to another influences risk behavior (Mayer et al., 1995).
Leaders who are less willing to be vulnerable are less willing to take risks. The avoidance of risk may explain why people who want to protect their power are more likely to undermine.
Considering this argumentation, it is logical that distrust is positively associated with undermining leadership.
The mediating role of distrust in the relationship between power and undermining leadership is built on previous findings that show the positive association between power and distrust and the previous discussed argumentation for the association between distrust and undermining leadership. I aim to show that power is associated with increased distrust and distrust is associated with increased undermining leadership. This indicates the mediating role
of distrust in the relation between power and undermining leadership. Therefore, my second hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between power and undermining leadership is mediated by distrust, such that power is associated with increased distrust, which in turn predicts
undermining leadership
Method Participants and Procedures
Data were collected by contacting and requesting people to participate in a study on predictors and outcomes of leadership. 25 students were expected to contact couples of 10 supervisors and one of their direct reports. The participants who were willing to participate were asked to complete an online questionnaire about leadership behaviours. Supervisors were prior to completing the survey informed that the survey includes some questions to leaders about one of their direct reports and to direct reports some questions about their supervisors. Besides that, all participants were ensured that confidentiality of their responses is guaranteed.
In total 228 supervisors and 228 subordinates were invited to complete the online survey. 169 (Response rate of 74.12%) supervisors and 188 (Response rate of 82.46%)
subordinates did complete the survey. When combining the data, 48 subordinates did not have supervisor data and 29 supervisors did not have subordinate data. In this research I used the combined data set of supervisors and their subordinates. This enabled me to compare data of couples of supervisors and their subordinates with each other. This led to 140 completed questionnaires of supervisors and their subordinates.
The mean age of supervisors (N = 140) was 42.56 (SD = 12.70) where subordinates in average were 34.88 (SD = 14.22) years old. 54% of the subordinates were between 18 and 30 years old. The age of the supervisors was more gradually distributed where 51-60 years
(27.3%) was the most common category. Male supervisors were in the majority with 58.6%, while among the subordinates, it were women who were in the majority with 59%.
Concerning nationalities, 82.9% of the participants had the Dutch nationality, 7.9 % was Chinese and 7.9% had another nationality. Participants worked in various sectors, the most common sectors were the health sector (19,4%), the retail sector (18.4%), and the business sector (14.4%). Concerning work hours per week, on average supervisors worked more hours than the direct reports. 70% of the supervisors worked 36 hours per week, against the 37,7%
of the subordinates who worked 36 hours per week or more.
Measures
Power. I used two power measures in the main analysis of this research, namely sense of power and hierarchical power. 8 items I used to measure sense of power (Anderson &
Galinsky, 2006). Participants were asked to react to statements, for example “I can get people to listen to what I say” and “If I want to, I get to make the decisions”. Participants could react to the statements on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 is ‘Strongly disagree’ and 5 is ‘Strongly agree’. Reliability analysis by Cronbach Alpha on the 8 statements measuring sense of power showed that the questions together had a α = .701. In accordance with prior research
(Lammers, Stokers, & Stapel, 2010) I measured hierarchical power by asking participants, “In your place of work, what level are you in the organizational hierarchy?” The participants could indicate their hierarchical position within their respective organization on a scale from 1 to 100, where 1 is the bottom and 100 is the top.
Distrust. I measured this item with 7 questions (Mooijman et al., 2015). Participants were asked to react to statements, for example: “Some people in this organization have tried to steal my ideas and take credit for them” and “I often wonder what hidden reason another person may have for doing something nice for you in this organization”. Participants could
react to the statements on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 is ‘Strongly disagree’ and 5 is
‘Strongly agree’. Reliability analysis by Cronbach Alpha showed α = .862.
Undermining leadership. The present research measured this item with 7 questions developed by (Duffy et al., 2002). Sample items included “How often has your supervisor intentionally talked down to you?” and “How often has your supervisor talked you down?” (α
= .911). Participants could react to the statements on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘never’, 2 is ‘once or twice’, 3 is ‘about once a week’, 4 ‘several times a week and 5 is ‘Strongly agree’.
Control variables. I considered age of the supervisor, gender of the supervisor as possible control variables. Also age of the subordinate is a possible control variable since the age of the subordinate might interact with undermining leadership (Ng & Feldman, 2013) because supervisors have the most power to act out on the negative stereotypes of older subordinates (Ferris, Yates, Gilmore, & Rowland, 1985). Regarding to age of the supervisor, Duffy et al. (2006) examined a positive relation between age and social undermining of the supervisor and might therefore be a possible control variable. Gender of the supervisor is a possible control variable because women are considered to have a more democratic and less autocratic approach as a leader than men (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). This might influence the effects power can have on distrust and undermining leadership.
Results Assumptions
To test the hypotheses of this research I will conduct regression analyses.
These analyses require several assumptions which are further described in this section. The variable distribution of undermining leadership deviates substantially from normality since the Shapiro Wilk test showed that the distribution significantly differs from normality (S = .75, p = .00). The distribution is positively skewed (S = 2.08, SE = ,21), and has a kurtosis of 4.58 (SE = .41). Figure 2 shows the positively skewed histogram of the distribution of
undermining leadership. Taking into account the positive skewness of the variable undermining leadership, the present research continues with this distribution.
Figure 2: Normal distribution for undermining leadership
Participants who scored below or above three times the standard deviation of the variable are considered as outliers. The present research showed one outlier in the distribution of
undermining leadership. In the main analysis, I will highlight the impact of this outlier.
Preliminary Analysis
Table 1 includes control variables age, gender, and years working for the employer.
Further the correlation table includes the variables sense of power and hierarchical power as power variables and includes the variables distrust, and undermining leadership. The
correlation table shows multiple significant correlations. Most salient are the non-significant negative correlation between sense of power and undermining leadership (r = -.09, p = .32) and the non-significant negative correlation between hierarchical power and undermining leadership (r = -.14, p = .09) where both relations were expected to correlate positively.
Therefore, there is no support for hypothesis 1.
Another salient correlation is the significant negative correlation between sense of power and distrust (r = -.31, p = .00) where I expected a positive correlation. Furthermore the
correlation table shows a significant negative correlation between age of the supervisor and distrust (r = .23 p = .01) Therefore, I will use age of the supervisor as a covariate in the main analysis.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Age Supervisor 2.73 1.26
2. Gender 1.42 .49 -.08
3. Age Subordinate 2.06 1.32 .55** -.03
4. Sense of Power 4.02 0.54 .19* -.17* .05
5. Hierarchical Power 73.59 22.57 .24** -.14 .01 .34**
6. Distrust 1.90 .75 -.23** -.10 -.11 -.31** -.19*
7. Undermining leadership
1.32 .45 -.09 .02 -.78 -.09 -.14 .20*
Notes. N ranges from 135 to 139, *p < .05, **p < .01, Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female.
Main Analysis
This section presents the main analysis of this research by analysing both hypotheses.
In the main analysis I use sense of power as variable for power (independent variable). The dependent variable is undermining leadership and the second hypothesis tests the mediating role of distrust in the relation between power and undermining leadership. To conduct a regression analysis I used model 4 of Process of Hayes (Hayes, 2018).
Preliminary analysis examined no support for hypotheses 1, because the relation between sense of power and undermining leadership was negative and not significant (r = - .09, p = .32). Also regression analysis by Process of Hayes showed a negative non-significant
direct effect of the mediation model (B = -.03, SE = .04, p = .35). Therefore regression analysis examined no support for hypothesis 1.
Regression analysis examined a negative significant regression between sense of power and distrust (a-path; B = -.23, SE = .06, p = .00) where R² = .09. Regression analysis showed a positive significant regression between distrust and undermining leadership (b-path;
B = .11, SE = .05, p = .02) with R² = .06. This results in a significant indirect effect: B = -.03 (SE = .02, LLCI = -.06, ULCI = -.00). Therefore, I conclude that the relationship of sense of power and undermining leadership is mediated by distrust. However, there is no support for hypothesis 2 because a positive regression was expected where the regression analysis showed a negative regression.
Table 2
Regression Results for Mediation
Variables B (SE) t p
Sense of Power x Distrust -.23 (.06) -3.68 .00
Distrust x Undermining leadership .11 (.05) 2.29 .02
Total effect -.06 (.04) -1.69 .09
Sense of Power x Undermining leadership -.03 (.04) -.95 .35
Indirect effect -.03 (.02) -.06, -.00
Notes. N = 137. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients; standard error estimates are in parentheses. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
When including the one outlier of the variable undermining leadership, no significant changes occur. The negative effect of the mediation of distrust between power and
undermining leadership remains negative and significant (B = -.03, SE = .02, LLCI = -.06, ULCI -.00).
.11*
Preliminary analysis showed that age of the supervisor is significantly correlated with both sense of power and distrust. Therefore I examined the effect of age as covariate in the mediation model. The result was that the indirect effect remains negative (B = -.02, SE = .01) but not significant (LLCI = -.06. ULCI = .00) anymore.
Sense of Power Undermining leadership
Indirect effect: -.03 (-.06. -.00)
Figure 3: Graphical representation of mediation effect ( *p < .05, **p < .01).
Hierarchical power. Preliminary analysis examined also no support for hypotheses 1 when using hierarchical power as variable of power, because the relation between sense of power and undermining leadership was negative and not significant (r = -.14, p = .09). When using hierarchical power as variable of power the regression analysis examines other results than when using sense of power as variable of power, as is also shown in table 3. Regression analysis shows a significant total effect that power is negatively related to undermining leadership. This is contradicting hypothesis 1, therefore I found no support for hypothesis 1 when using hierarchical power as power variable.
Regression between hierarchical power and distrust is negative and significant (B = - .14, SE = .06, p = .03). Regression between distrust and undermining leadership is positive and significant (B = .11, SE = .05, p = .02). This results in a non-significant indirect effect of - .02 (SE = .01, LLCI = -.04, ULCI = .00 ). Concluding that using hierarchical power as a variable of power, distrust mediates not significantly the relationship between power and
-.11 (-.06)
-.43** Distrust
.11*
undermining leadership. Therefore, when using hierarchical power as a power variable there is no support for hypothesis 2.
Table 3
Regression Results for Mediation: Hierarchical power
Variables B (SE) t p
Hierarchical Power x Distrust -.14 (.06) -2.25 .03
Distrust x Undermining leadership .11 (.05) 2.30 .02
Total effect -.08 (.03) -2.33 .02
Hierarchical Power x Undermining leadership -.06 (.04) -1.89 .06
Indirect effect -.02 (.01) -.04, .00
Notes. N = 137 . Values are unstandardized regression coefficients; standard error estimates are in parentheses. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01
Hierarchical Power Undermining leadership
Indirect effect: -.02 (-.04, .00)
Figure 4: Graphical representation of mediation effect ( *p < .05, **p < .01).
Discussion
The present research examines the role of power in undermining behavior of a
supervisor towards its subordinate. Specifically, I examine the mediating role of distrust in the relationship between power and undermining leadership. Analysis of data showed that power and undermining leadership are non-significant negatively directly related. The effect of
-.08* (-.06)
-.14* Distrust
power is contradicting the expected outcome, however, this research does not indicate a significant direct effect, and therefore found no evidence to indicate that hypothesis 1 is true.
This research presents evidence indicating that power is negatively related to distrust and the positive relation between distrust and undermining leadership. Both relations were significant. Contradicting what I expected, the current study found evidence to indicate that distrust mediates the negative relation between sense of power and undermining leadership.
Theoretical Contributions
The current work provides nuance in the existing theory on the effects of power, since findings in my research are contradicting with indications of previous literature. Literature indicates that power is associated with increased distrust (Inesi et al., 2012; Mooijman et al., 2015; Schilke, Reimann, & Cook, 2015; Mooijman et al., 2019) while the current work examined the opposite. This research can therefore be a valuable addition to what is already known in the literature.
The contradicting outcome may be caused by the way supervisors and subordinates are targeted for the online questionnaire. All participants had the willingness to participate in this research, which will further be explained in a later section. Negative effects of power are mostly examined in an environment where powerholders want to protect their power and feel threatened (Feenstra et al., 2020; Case & Maner, 2014). It is reasonable to believe that people who are feeling threatened and have a bad relationship with their direct reports are less willing to participate in a study about power.
Practical Contributions
This research found evidence indicating the positive effects of power than previous research. Building on evidence indicating that the positive relation between power and undermining leadership is mediated by distrust, increasing the perceptions of an individual’s
power can be beneficial for the organization. Organizations and HR departments should focus on ways to increase the sense of power of their employees.
Sense of power can be seen as a psychological construct of an individual (Anderson &
Galinsky, 2006). Individuals can form internal representations of their power relative to others in specific (Bugental, Blue, & Cruzcosa, 1989) and across (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006) contexts and relationships. Therefore sense of power is a relational concept (Anderson &
Galinsky, 2006). Since sense of power is a relational concept, by giving leaders the capacity to control outcomes of their subordinates, such as salary raises, can increase the sense of power.
Limitations and future research
This research has some limitations, the use of a convenience sample is one of the limitations. The targeted participants were easily accessible to the researchers who facilitated the sample. All the participants had the willingness to participate in the research, it can be the supervisor and subordinates who have a good relationship are more willing to participate. The convenience sampling is a type of nonprobability sampling and therefore likely to be biased (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). To minimize the chance for biases, I suggest for future research to make use of random sampling methods where an element of the population has a known, non-zero probability of being selected (Levy & Lemeshow, 1991).
For my main analysis I used data that did not meet the requirements for normality. The distribution of undermining leadership is positively skewed (S = 2.08, SE = .21). Non-normal distributions are more likely for biases. Consequently, results may be based on an inaccurate representation of reality. Therefore analyses related to undermining leadership can be
questioned.
Literature showed that that unstable power is associated with decreased willingness to trust another by giving away control over one’s resources (Mooijman et al., 2015). Further in
literature, distrust and undermining leadership are more likely to occur in situations where leaders who want to protect their power feel threatened (Feenstra et al., 2020; Case & Maner, 2014). The present research does not include the effects of power threat. Therefore, I can say little about the role of power threat in this research and how it is related to distrust and undermining leadership. Therefore, scholars should invest research which examines the role of power threat in the mediating mechanism of distrust in the relationship between power and undermining leadership.
Conclusion
Undermining leadership can have detrimental consequences for employees in an organization, therefore I examined why undermining behaviors occur. I examined the relation between power and undermining leadership and particularly the mediating role of distrust in this relation. I found no support for my first hypothesis that power positively influences undermining behavior. Further I found contradicting results that indicates that the negative relation between power and undermining leadership is mediated by distrust. However this is only the case when using sense of power as power variable. The current work broadens knowledge about determinants of undermining leadership and it also suggests practical implications for HR-managers and managements of organizations how to lesson undermining behavior by supervisors towards their respective direct supports.
References
Anderson, C. & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The Experience of Power: Examining the Effects of Power on Approach and Inhibition Tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362-1377.
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4).
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., Sitkin, S. B., & Weibel, A. (2015). Distrust in the balance: The
emergence and development of intergroup distrust in a court of law. Organization Science, 26(4), 1018–1039.
Bugental, D. B., Blue, J., & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control over caregiving outcomes: Implications for child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 25, 532–539.
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, 1033–1050.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust
propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.
Academy of management Journal, 45, 331-351.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 101, 105-126.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256.
Eissa, G., Chinchanachokchai, S, & Wyland, R. (2017). The influence of supervisor undermining on Self-Esteem, Creativity, and overall job performance: a multiple mediation model, organization Management Journal, 14(4), 185-197.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power dependence relations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 27:30–41.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
Fehr, E., Herz, H., & Wilkening, T. (2013). The lure of authority: Motivation and incentive effects of power. American Economic Review, 103, 1325–1359.
Ferris, G. R., Yates, V. L., Gilmore, D. C., & Rowland, K. M. (1985). The influence of
subordinate age on performance ratings and causal attributions. Personnel Psychology, 38, 545–557.
Frazier, M. L., & Bowler, W. M. (2015). Voice climate, undermining leadership, and work outcomes: A group-level examination. Journal of Management, 41(3), 841-863.
Georgesen, J., & Harris, M.J. (2006). Holding onto power: Effects of powerholders’
positional instability and expectancies on interactions with Employees. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 451-468.
Gibb, C. A. (1985). Leadership. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 205-282. New York: Random House.
Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Picollo, R. F. (2015). When leaders fail to “Walk the talk undermining leadership and perceptions of leader hypocrisy. Journal of
Management, 41(3), 929-956.
Hayes, A. F. (2018) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
a regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York. The Guildford press.
Inesi, E. M., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). How power corrupts relationships:
Cynical attributions for others’ generous acts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 795–803.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Wanberg, C. Rubenstein, A., & Song, Z. (2013). Support
undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1104-1124.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 33–41.
Kipnis, D., Castell, P. J., Gergen, M., & Mauch, D. (1976). Metamorphic effects of power.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 127–135.
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.
Langner, C.A., & Keltner, D. (2008). Social power and emotional experience. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 848–856.
Levy, P. S., & Lemeshow, S. 1991. Sampling of populations: Methods and Applications. New York: Wiley.
Lount, R. B., & Pettit, N. C. (2012). The social context of trust: The role of status.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 15–23.
Magee, J., & Galinsky, A.D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351-398.
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time.
In R. Falcone, M. Singh, & Y. Tan (Eds.). Trust in Cyber-societies, 27–54.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123- 136.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
Mooijman, M., van Dijk, W. W., Ellemers, N., & van Dijk, E. (2015). Why leaders punish: A power perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 75–89.
Mooijman, M., van Dijk, W.W., van Dijk, E., & Ellemers, N. (2019). Leader power, power stability, and interpersonal trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 1-10.
Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C. (2013). Age and innovation-related behavior: The joint moderating effects of undermining leadership and proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 34, 583–606.
Schilke, O., Reimann, M., & Cook, K. C. (2015). Power decreases trust in social exchange.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112, 12950–12955.
Wojciszke, B., & Kujalowicz-Struzynska, A. (2007). Power influences self-esteem. Social Cognition, 25, 472–494.
