DOMINANCE ORIENTANTION AND ABUSE OF POWER
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of
Groningen, Faculty of Economics Business
INTRODUCTION
In the recent years, more and more leaders tend to abuse their power at the expense of others in order to attain their personal goals(Wisse, Rus & Knippenberg, 2012). Clearly, it is essential to understand the conditions that prompt leaders to pursue their own interest at the expense of the groups they lead. The abuse of power is defined as the fact that people, in the workplaces, use their power to benefit themselves instead of those around them (William 2014). The abuse of power has lots of negative consequences which may provoke devastating outcomes for the members of the team. Individuals who have been abused on their working environment tent to increase their psychological distress and also to increase anxiety, depression, negative emotions and anger (Bowling & Beehr, 2006, Hansen e., 2006, Hauge & Einarsen 2006). Furthermore, abuse of power can lead employees to be absent from their working responsibilities with an excuse of being sick which is mainly stemmed by psychological reasons (Sprigg, Martin, Niven, & Armitage, 2010). Moreover, abused persons tend to have low level of creativity (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2008) and higher counterproductive work behavior (Hershcovis, 2012). As a result, employees have low job performance, worse relationship with their peers as well with their supervisors, which result in situations to create a negative impact on organization’s profitability (Schat & Frone, 2011). Taking into consideration all the negative aspects of abuse of power, it is essential to explain more sufficiently why persons under specific conditions, such as higher level of threat for their power position or when leaders have a higher level of social dominance orientation, tend to abuse their power resulting in negative consequences for both the employees and firm’s performance. To sum up, the abuse of power can have devastating outcomes not only for humans' outcomes, but also for the outcomes of the organization. Therefore, the present research will examine which leaders are more prone to abuse their power.
subordinates due to the fact that the leaders’ behaviors have huge impact on the employees’ and the firm’s performance (Schat & Frone, 2011).
The present research proposes that leaders with high social dominance orientation tend to abuse their power at the expense of others. Social dominance theory (SDT) has addressed how organizations influence intergroup relations within societies, and how people are fighting in order to sustain inequalities within organization hierarchy (Aiello, Pratto and Pierro, 2013). Humans want to acquire position inside of this hierarchy which provides to them a greater social power or bigger influence on other company members. Due to their need to maintain or acquire a high social power position, they are willing to behave unethical in order to attain these desirable positions. Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait which predicts social attitudes. It is a measure of individual differences based on group discrimination. (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). The level of individual SDO demonstrates at which degree manager or leaders will behave unethical or not, in order to maintain their social power position. I expect from this research to predict the positive relationship between high social dominance orientation and abuse of power. In this research, I also consider the moderate role of threat of power. Threat of power is defined as the increased possibilities that somebody has to lose his/her position or lose a part of his/her power (William 2014). It is crucial to take into account that leaders under threat may be likely to demonstrate self-interested behavior that helps them to protect their own power (William 2014).Moreover, high ranking positions in organizations may be accompanied by higher wages and additional benefits (Raith & Friebel, 2001). As a result more and more employees are willing to try to acquire this position. As the competition level increases for these positions, the level of threat for leaders who possess these desirable power positions, increases respectively. Eventually, as explained before, in this research, I expect to prove that the high level of threat of power has a positive impact on previous relationship, SDO and abuse of power, because leaders who are under threat, are willing to exploit their power in order to protect their positions. In addition, our second expectation is to prove that low level of threat power has less positive impact on the relationship between SDO and abuse of power, because it creates a situation which boosts the sense that the leader’s position is secure, as well their social power.
moderates this relationship. Specifically, the present research will try to prove that the relationship of SDO-abused of power is positively influenced when the power of the person is under threat, while SDO is less positively related to abuse of power when the power threat is low.
In this respect, the present research has important theoretical implications. Firstly, it will give a better understanding of why persons with high level of SDO tend to use unethical behaviors at the expense of their subordinates. In addition to this, the second implication is that this study will give a more nuanced picture of the abuse of power, in particular, when leaders are experiencing the sense of threat for their position.
The present research has also important practical implications. Firstly, many of the companies and employees who involved in such situation, can benefit from this research by having a better understanding of how the sense of threat of power can influence leaders’ activities and behaviors. Moreover, it is important for the human resource department to examine the level of social dominance orientation of workforce in order to predict when persons are under the sense of threat for his/her power and with high SDO then it is more likely to engage in unethical actions, like abusing their subordinates. Last but not least, this research can motivate companies and leaders to take into account how important it is to produce a fair, creative and sustainable hierarchy system in order to reduce the sense of threat of power and to avoid future practices that will have a negative impact on both employees and company’s performance.
THEORY Social Dominance Theory
Moreover, group base social hierarchy can be influenced by legitimizing myths. Legitimizing myths consists of cultural attitudes such as values and personal beliefs that can provide a better explanation on the social practices within the social system. There are two functional types of legitimizing myths: (1) Enhancing (HE) and (2) Hierarchy-Attenuating (HA) legitimizing myths. The first one contributes to group based social inequalities (sexism, classical racism, nationalism or meritocracy) while the second contributes to group based social equalities (Feminism or anarchism). As I have mentioned before when analyzing the SDT, it is essential to refer to the SDO as a valuable predictor of leaders’ behaviors which takes into consideration facts such as values, belief, attitudes and personal ideologies.
Social Dominance Orientation
People try to adopt these different forms of ideologies based on their personal psychological orientation towards becoming dominant and their perspectives of what is unequal in group relations (Sidanius & Pratto 1999). The social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait which predicts social and political attitudes. SDO is conceptualized as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination. It is a measure of an individual's preference on a certain hierarchical position within any social system (Tilly, Sidanius and Pratto, 2001). Furthermore, SDO indicates the extent to which one tolerates the inequalities within the group (Lee, Pratto, & Johnson, 2011). People with high SDO feel superior and exhibit more dominance than others (Lippa & Arad, 1999). Research has shown that SDO is a necessary and useful tool of measuring the discriminatory policy attitudes. (Pratto et al., 1994; Pratto, Stallworth, & Conway-Lanz, 1999).
proved to be less likely to use unethical behaviors against their subordinates (Duckitt 2006). Also according to Duckitt, (2001) the SDO can be viewed as a motivation to mechanism goals where people can be motivated differently by power in order to enforce their dominance. Generally, people with high SDO are more oriented towards dominance and self-interest than towards a concern for others (Son Hing et al. 2007). Some leaders are willing to do whatever is necessary to reassure that their social power and status will not decrease. As a result, they use their power to maintain the existent social hierarchy within the organization or their group. (Duckitt, 2006). These activities will be at the expense of other members of a group or organization.
To sum up, the present research aims to show that leaders with high levels of SDO tend to abuse their power in order to protect their social status or power positions and maintain the hierarchy which satisfies their personal interests.
Hypothesis 1: High SDO is positive related to abuse of power
Threat of Power
instead of focusing on how to help or motivate their subordinates to attain the group’s goals. In this research, the threat of power plays a moderate role on the relationship between SDO and abuse of power. In the next paragraph, I explicitly explain how threat of power influences this relationship.
In the current research, I will try to prove that the threat of power has a positive impact on the relationship between of SDO and abuse of power. The variable of threat of power, combined with the high social dominance orientation, tends to accentuate the likelihood of the supervisor or leader to use his/her power at the expenses of other members or subordinates, because they want to maintain their powerful position. Another outcome of the research that should be highlighted is that when a person does not experience the sense of threat, with high or low level of SDO, then his/her activities and behaviors will not include practices which are characterized as abused against their subordinates.
Hypothesis 2: High social dominance orientation is positively related to abuse of power when the power threat is high, while SDO is less positively related to abuse of power when the power threat is low.
Figure 1: Research Model
METHODS Procedure
In this research, my target group was companies which are established in Greece. I focused on those companies, firstly, due to the increasing number of unemployment rate in Greece and secondly, because of the financial crisis in this country, there are numerous limitations in the financial sector. By taking into account the previous statement, I am led into situation which leads to insecure environment that enhances the likelihood of losing one’s job. By focusing on Greek companies, I was expecting to observe a higher level of threat in participants and mainly a lot of actions taken by the leaders aiming to protect their position
Social Dominance Orientation
and using that power against their subordinates. I selected Greek employees, because I strongly believe that the external environment of Greece accentuates the pressure and enhances the sense of threat for their positions.
The majority of the participants were informed by emails while some of them were informed via the practice of word of mouth. I communicated with the responsible departments of company which were suitable for distributing the questionnaires to employees within the company. In the questionnaire, the final number of participants was 81. The majority of them was males (65%). The average age of the total participants was 28.88 (SD= 6.04). The average hours that they were working was 38 hours per week and 61.7% of the participants had a permanent employment contract. Another remarkable result was the average of years that someone worked for his/her current employee: it was 7 years while in the question about how many years they had been working in their current position, the average result was 4 years and 9 months. Furthermore, 48.1 % of the participants had a supervisor position. At the same time, the number of participants who responded that they had no or low management position was 63%. In the end, the majority of participants had at least a diploma of bachelor (81.5%) and only 3% had a higher education diploma (PhD).
Measures
I used one questionnaire in order to assess the level of power that they possessed, the threat of power, the social dominance orientation, and the abuse of power.
Threat of power was measured with an 9-item scale taken from Feenstra (2016). The
Social dominance orientation was measured with a 16-item scale taken from Pratto et
all (1994). Some examples of 16-item scales are: To what extent do you agree with following statements 1) "Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.” 2) “In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.” 3) “It is probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.” The range of answer is numbered from '1' to '7' which represents the degree of your agreement or disagreement with that statement. . (1= I totally disagree, 7= I totally agree) The Cronbach alpha analysis of SDO is .764.
Abuse of power was measured with an 8-item scale taken from Rus, Knippenberg, and
Wisse (2010). Examples items are: How often do you behave in the ways described below in your organization? 1) “I have negotiated a bonus for myself that was substantially higher than the bonus my subordinates received”, 2) “I have used my leadership position to obtain benefits for myself.” 3) “I have pursued my personal interests, even if those interests were not serving my group's interests.” 4) “I did not put my own position at risk, even when I thought that this could have helped promote my group's goals.” The range of answer is numbered from '1' to '5' which are represent to what degree the participants were involved in these kind of behaviors in the past. The scale is labeled: (1) never, (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, (4) usually and (5) always. The Cronbach alpha of abuse of power is .758
Regarding control variables in the current research, I expected to observe some control variables which are related to the abuse of power. I considered participants’ age and gender as possible control variables. Those two potential control variables have already been proven to have a relation with the abuse of power in previous works such as the research which was conducted by Rus, Knippenberg, and Wisse (2010). Furthermore, I consider the education as a possible control variables because I expected to observe significant relationship between education and abuse of power or threat of power.
Analysis
Last but not least, I calculated the statistical power of my research and the result was 0.9568. In order to reach this outcome, the Gpower3192 software platform was used. In this software, I used four predictors (age, education, SDO and threat of power), the r-square of my regression analysis model (0.20) which gave me an effective size f2=0.25, included the control variables, the total number of participants in my research (81) and as a probability level I selected the number 0.05 which is also referred as p-value or type 1 error rate. The statistical power result showed that the results of the present research have a small probability to false reject both of my hypotheses.
RESULTS
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and inter-correlations between all study variables. In support of hypothesis1, results show a significant bivariate correlation between Social dominance orientation and abuse of power (r=.229, p=.040) Even though the number of participants is not so represented, the first hypothesis may be proved by the results. Another significant correlation is the relation between the threat of power and abuse of power (r=.306,
p=.005). Moreover, based on my results, I calculated the correlations between threat of power
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Inter-correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Age 29,88 6.04 2. Gender 1,35 0.48 -.17 3. Education 3.28 0.79 .26 0.4 4.SDO 4.25 0.77 .11 .04 .03 5. Threat of Power 3.24 1.33 -.37** .13 -.28* .11 6. Abuse of Power 1.78 0.56 -.31** -.15 -.16* .23* .37**
Notes. N ranges is 81. For gender, 1 = male, 2 =female. For education, 1= high school, 2= bachelor, 3= master,
4= PhD, SDO = social dominance orientation N = . +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01
Table 2 depicts results of moderated regression analysis in order to test if the hypotheses are true or not. In this research, I aimed to predict that threat of power would moderate the effects of social dominance orientation – abuse of power. By observing the results I concluded that the results showed that the threat of power does not have an important effect on the relationship between SDO and Abuse of power (B= -.04, SE=-0,06, t=-0.69,
p=0.49). Specifically, I expected to observe the relationship of SDO-Abuse of power to be
Table 2
Regression Results for moderation Interaction
Variables B SE t p Age Gender -.02 -.27 .01 .12 -2.74 -2.20 0.08 0.03 Education -.03 .08 -0.34 0.74 SDO .18 .09 2.04 0.05 Threat of power .09 .06 1.44 0.16 SDO × Threat of power -.04 .06 -0.69 0.49
N=81, SDO= social dominance orientation.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present research aimed to prove that a person who is under a high level of threat regarding high social dominance orientation, tends to act in a more abusive way towards his/her peers or subordinates. The findings did not support that hypothesis but some additional interesting results came out. Intriguingly, significant relation exist between control variables and my dependent variable.
Theoretical Implications
in order to protect their position or power. The research of William (2014) demonstrates that leaders with self-interested behavior acts less ethical toward his peer or subordinates. In the current research, I supported the William’ concluded thoughts which refer to the fact that the threat of power influences the leader’s behavior to use their power more abusively in order to protect his/her power or position.
Secondly, age is an important variables that has a significant relation with threat and abuse of power. Age provides a better explanation on why some young people feel more the feeling of threat around of them. Age was strongly connected with conflicts in the workplace (Northam, 2009). The present research showed that the younger someone is, then there is a higher possibility person feels more threat for his/her position. Those people are more vulnerable and have higher possibilities to use their power with a not necessarily acceptable way in order to maintain their power
Moreover, education was significant related with threat of power. These mean that the less educated someone is, then it is more possible person feels more threat about his/her position. This research contributes to better understanding on the relationship between education and threat of power. On the other hand, education does not have a significant impact on abuse of power. This fact is aroused some doubts because I expected to observe that less educated people also have a significant probabilities to unethical behave towards peers or subordinates.
Last but not least, in this research I provide a more nuanced understanding of SDO. My perspective was measure the attribute of SDO by using only questionnaire as a method of collecting information. The results showed that SDO is positively related to the abuse of power. These results contribute to support the previous researches which had already been proved the positive relationship between these two variables (Duckit, 2001, 2006; Altemeyer, 1998). The present research support the evidence of people with high SDO tend to use more abusive behaviors.
Practical Implications
account that threat of power leads to more abusive behavior, companies should take the necessary steps to prevent such behaviors within organizations. Companies can reduce the feeling of threat by showing a clear internal staffing process focusing to develop concurrent employees or by providing effective coaching session in order to guide leaders to better handle the pressure around of them (Francis, Cyril, Oluseyi, 2011)
The present research also showed to the human resource departments the significant relationship between age and abuse of power as well the relation between education and threat of power. Both of the previous relationships are important and should be taken into account when organizations create their human resource philosophy. Specifically, organizations should carefully take into account the variable of age when they need to select a young person for leadership position. Young people may has less experience of highly pressure situation, as a result, they may express extremely behaviors during the time of a stressful situation. By reading the present paper, companies might protect themselves from unpleasant future situation by hiring people who can act more effectively under of feeling of threat instead of focusing only to maintain their power.
Limitations
I acknowledge that the present research reveals some limitations that probably are indicated in the results.
There are a few reasons why the results did not support our initial expectations. The main significant limitation of the present research is the small number of participants. There was a total number of 93 respondents, from which 12 people did not successfully complete the questionnaire. The number of people that actually completed the questionnaire is relatively small and it is not a representative number from which a valid conclusions could be extracted. Secondly, due to the fact that the questionnaire was distributed via emails, the participants did not have the opportunity to seek for additional help in order to apprehend better the meaning of some questions. There is a high possibility that some of the participants did not fully understand the concept of threat of power and did perceive the notion of power differently. A considerable part of this population (18.5%) were high school graduates and the fact that the questionnaire was addressed in the English language may foster the previous statement. Additionally, there is a high probability that some may have overestimated their power, misperceived the idea of power, and their ability to influence others. This probability is what makes one cautious of whether the results represent their real situation or not.
Thirdly, I consider that the selection of threat of power as a moderate variable is wrong. There are many articles which already found the existence of positive relationship between SDO with abuse of power (Duckit, 2001, 2006; Altemeyer, 1998). Based on this argument, it is possible that people with high SDO feel more motivated to acquire or maintain a position which has been characterized as powerful and attractive by using their power against their colleagues. However, threat of power may not be a suitable moderator variable, even though, there is some evidence that implies the positive effect, with the relationship of SDO and abuse of power (Duckitt, 2006: Levin, 2002).
feel obligated to complete. Perhaps, this led them to complete the questionnaire unconscientiously, without deep consideration of all the aspects that would be required in order to complete the questionnaire efficiently.
Future Research
Even though the results of the survey did not support us in proving the second hypothesis, I strongly recommend that this topic should be examined again under specific circumstances. By referring to specific circumstances, I mean to share the questionnaire to a bigger number of people who hold a higher managerial position within their organization.
Moreover, I strongly recommend that it will be important to seek information for managers from their subordinates with the practices of observation or interviews. Observation can be defined as a systematic description of behaviors or actions according to social settings chosen for study (Marsall, McQuarrie & Rossman, 1990). By using the practice of observation as a method of collecting data, then the advantages are: 1) richly detailed description, 2) better understanding the culture, 3) improves the quality of data collection (Kawulich, 2005). At the same vein, the process of interview as a method of collecting data has numerous advantages according to Alshenqeeti (2014).
In addition, by using a different moderate variables may bring new data related to abuse of power. Hierarchy may be an interesting moderate variable to examine with the relationship between SDO and abuse of power. Based on Yan Bing Zhang (2006) and the article of Spector and Jones (2004), hierarchy has a strong effect on conflicts between members in the workplace and this is a strong indication that hierarchy might have a significant relationship with abuse of power. SDO is closely connected to social hierarchy (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). Both of these facts are demonstrated a potential positive influence of hierarchy above of relationship between of SDO and abuse of power.
Nowadays, the threat of power is an escalating phenomenon within companies, due to the uncertain and fast paced economic environment around us. It is far more important to examine this variable and its effect on behaviors of managers who act under of extremely high threat situations. For this reason, I foster the notion to of continuous investigation of the threat of power as a dependent or moderate variable.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This manuscript is based on a doctoral Master conducted under the supervision of Mrs Sanne Feenstra at University of Groningen (RUG).
REFERENCES
Aiello, A., Pratto, F., & Pierro, A. 2013. "Framing social dominance orientation and power in organizational context." Basic and Applied Social Psychology 35.5: 487-495.
Alsaraireh, F., Griffin M., Ziehm, S., Fitzpatrickl, J., 2014. "Job Satisfaction and turnover intention among Jordanian nurses in psychiatric units." International journal of mental health nursing 23.5: 460-467.
Alshenqeeti, H., 2014. "Interviewing As A Data Collection Method: A Critical Review." English Linguistics Research 3.1: 40-44
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “Authoritarian Personality”. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 47–91). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Anderson, C., Kraus, M. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Keltner, D., 2012. The local-ladder effect
Social status and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 23: 764-771.
Biron, Michal, and Corine Boon (2013). "Performance and turnover intentions: A social exchange perspective." Journal f Managerial Psychology 28.5: 511-531.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 33, pp. 41– 113. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Duckitt, J. 2006 "Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups". Personality and Socia l Psychology Bulletin 32.5: 684-696
Francis A., Cyril O., I., & Oluseyi S., A., 2011: "Internal Versus External Staffing In Nigeria: Cost-Benefit Implications." Journal of Management and Strategy 2.4: 35-42
Frederiksen, A., 2016. “Job satisfaction and employee turnover: A firm-level perspective.” German journal of Human Resource management. 31(2): 132-161.
Georgesen, J., & Harris, M., 2006 "Holding onto power: effects of powerholders' positional instability and expectancies on interactions with subordinates". European Journal of Social Psychology 36.4: 451-468.
Hansen, Å. M., Hogh, A., Persson, R., Karlson, B., Garde, A. H., & Ørbæk, P. 2006. “Bullying at work, health outcomes, and physiological stress response”. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60: 63–72.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. 2010. The relative impact of workplace bullying as a social stressor at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51: 426–433 Hershcovis, M. S., Reich, T. C, Parker, S. K., & Bozeman, J. 2012. “The relationship between
workplace aggression and target deviant behaviour: The moderating roles of power and task interdependence”. Work & Stress, 26: 1–20.
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F, Henkel, K.E., Foels, R. & Stewart, A.L. 2015 "The nature of social dominance orientation: theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO 7 scale”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109.6: 1003-1028.
Kennedy-Woodard, M., 2017 “A proposed measure of social dominance orientation in children” 2017 Academia.edu.
Kipnis, D., 1972 "Does power corrupt?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24.1: 33-41.
Levin, S., Federico, C., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J., 2002 "Social dominance orientation and intergroup bias: the legitimation of favoritism for high-status groups ". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28.2: 144-157.
Lippa, R., & Arad, S. 1999. Gender, personality, and prejudice: The display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33: 463–493.
Magee, J., & Galinsky, A., 2008. "8 Social hierarchy: the self-reinforcing nature of power and status". The Academy of Management Annals 2.1: 351-398.
Maner, J., & Mead, N., 2010. “The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99: 482-497.
Mathisen, G., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. 2008. “The occurrence and correlates of bullying and harassment in the restaurant sector”. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49: 59–68
McQuarrie, E., Marshall, C., & Rossman. G.,(1990). "Designing Qualitative Research." Journal of Marketing Research 27.3: 370.
Northam, S. (2009). Conflict in the Workplace: Part 1. AJN, American Journal of Nursing, 109(6), pp.70-73
Kennedy-Woodard, M., 2017 “A proposed measure of social dominance orientation in children” 2017 Academia.edu.
Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2009). “The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is damaging your business and what to do about it”. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Pratto F., Sidanius J., Stallworth L., & Malle, B., 1994. “Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 741–763.
Rus, D., 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.
Rice, S., Winter, S. R., Doherty, S. & Milner, M., 2017. "Advantages And Disadvantages Of Using Internet-Based Survey Methods In Aviation-Related Research." Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering 7.1.
Schat, A., & Frone, M., 2011. “Exposure to psychological aggression at work and job performance: The mediating role of job attitudes and personal health”. Work & Stress,
25: 23–40
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F., 2001. Social dominance: an intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge : Cambridge University Press Son Hing, L., S. Bobocel, D., Zanna, M., & McBride. M., 2007. "Authoritarian dynamics and
unethical decision making: high social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing authoritarianism followers." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92.1: 67-81.
Spector, M. & Jones, G., 2004. Trust in the Workplace: Factors Affecting Trust Formation Between Team Members. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3) :311-321. Sprigg, C. A., Martin, A., Niven, K., & Armitage, C. J. 2010. “Unacceptable behavior, health
and well-being at work: A cross-lagged longitudinal study.” Institution of occupational safety and health.
Valaei, N., & Rezaei, S.,(2016) "Job Satisfaction And Organizational Commitment." Management Research Review 39.12: 1663-1694.
Vie, T., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S., 2010. “Does trait anger, trait anxiety, or organizational position moderate the relationship between exposure to negative acts and self-labelling as a victim of workplace bullying?” Nordic Psychology, 62: 67–79.
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult C., Foster C., & Agnew. C., 1999. "Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77.5: 942-966.
