Power threat and leadership:
The effect of power threats on undermining leadership
University of Groningen Research Paper for Pre-MSc HRM
EBS013A10
Date (24, 05, 2020)
Marielle Toeter S4181484
m.toeter.1@student.rug.nl
Abstract
It is not uncommon that leaders are motivated to gain or retain power, since evidence suggested that power is pleasurable state. Protecting a leader’s power position can become top priority, if the power of the leader is threatened. This can lead to supervisor undermining leadership. Previous research has shown that supervisor undermining leadership is associated with undesirable work outcomes, which makes it important to understand when and why leaders behave in such a manner. Therefore, this study will focus on the effect of power threat on supervisor undermining leadership in organizations. I propose that power is positively associated with supervisor undermining leadership, whereas it is associated with increased supervisor undermining leadership when power threat is high. The sample, used for this research, consists of 140 supervisors and their respective subordinates. I found no support for the association of hierarchical power on supervisor undermining leadership. Despite, I found that power threat interacts with power, such that wen power threat is low, supervisor undermining leadership decreases. Based on the findings, theoretical and practical implications are developed.
Keywords:
Introduction
It is not uncommon that leaders are motivated to retain or gain power over the heads of their subordinates (Georgesen & Harris, 2006), since power is seen as a pleasurable state
(Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Berdahl & Martorana, 2006). This can lead to an environment where supervisors undermine their subordinates (Georgesen & Harris, 2006). Previous research shows that undermining leadership is associated with undesirable work outcomes like, workplace deviance, psychological problem by subordinates, reduce job satisfaction, job performance and reduce turnover (Eissa & Lester, 2016; Martino, Harvey, Brees & Mackey, 2013; Tepper, 2007). Tepper (2000) furthermore states that the degree of supervisor
undermining behaviour would affect the subordinates perceptions of organizational justice, which in turn, affect their job satisfaction, life satisfaction, organizational commitment, conflict between work and family life and psychological distress. Other research also shows that leader focused on achieving mutual goals improves outcomes for the organisation and subordinates, where focus on the leaders his/her own goals deteriorates these outcomes (Williams, 2014).
Considering that undermining leadership can have detrimental consequences for subordinates and the organization as a hole, it’s important to understand when and why leaders behave in such a manner. As said, evidence suggested that power is a pleasurable state. People who wield power, experience more positive emotion and optimism, enjoy a greater sense of control and feel more authentic about themselves (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Berdahl & Martorana, 2006). According to Georgesen & Haris (2006) it is not
environment where supervisors undermine their subordinates (Williams, 2014). Where
undermining leadership is about the emotional or psychological mistreatment of subordinates, with behaviours such as ridiculing subordinates in groups, withholding of important
information, using disdainful language, threats and intimidation (Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002).
Thus, to date, there has been done research on the relation between power and
undermining leadership and the moderation effect of power threat on undermining leadership (Feenstra, Jordan, Walter, Yan, Stoker, 2017; Maner & Mead, 2010; Williams, 2014). Yet, there is relatively little understanding of when and why leaders undermine their subordinates.
Therefore, the present research will focus on the effect of power threat on supervisor undermining leadership in organizations (Figure 1). The first aim of the present research is to show that power is positively associated with supervisor undermining leadership (Georgesen & Haris, 2006). The second aim of the present research is to show when power and power threat interact to influence supervisor undermining leadership (Williams, 2014). I aim to show that when power threat is high supervisor undermining leadership will increase and that power and power threat not interact when power threat is low (Williams, 2014).
This present research widens previous research on the subject, power, power threat and supervisor undermining leadership. The research will take into account when power threat influence supervisor undermining leadership and what the predictors of power threat are. Also, there will be given additional evidence that supervisor undermining leadership can have negative consequences.
attentions. The leader is afraid of getting replace by these talented subordinates, which can lead to more self-interested behaviour. An organization can stop this behaviour by simply securing the leader he/she has no reason to doubt about his/her position. In this way,
supervisor undermining leadership can be avoided such that organization don not have to deal with the negative consequence associated with supervisor undermining leadership.
This study I will make use of survey data. This survey data is will be collected among supervisor and their subordinates. There will be difference between the participants, like culture, nationality and branch, since the group is selected on leadership roles.
Figure 1: Predicted two-way interaction of power and power threat with supervisor undermining leadership.
Theory and Hypotheses Definitions
In this section I will define the variables used in this research, namely what the definition of power, power threat and supervisor undermining leadership.
social relationship (Lammers, et al., 2015; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). It captures the state of dependence between two or more parties, like individuals and groups (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1974; Pfeffer and Moore, 1980; Dencker, 2009): where the low-power party is dependent on the high-power party for rewards and punishment, the high-power party is less dependent on the low-power party (Emerson, 1962).
Power Threat. Williams (2014) states that securing one’s hold on power is likely to become the top priority of a leader, if he/she has the feeling that their power is under threat. A leader has a social contract with their subordinates wherein the subordinates trust the leader to make decisions that benefit the group and a leader is expected to pursue action in the group’s best interest (Maner & Mead, 2010). According to Williams (2014) there are three sources of power threats, namely positional insecurity, self-doubt and low social status. Self-doubt is an internal threat, the leader doubt about whether he/she truly has the ability and capacity to lead subordinates. Evidence suggested that threats to power, such as positional insecurity, self-doubt and low social status, cause leaders to act in more self-interested ways (Williams, 2014). Power threat can be defined as a situation in which the power position, status or authority of a leader/supervisor is threatened.
Supervisor undermining leadership. Power is seen as a central element of leadership and which can have effect on the leadership in an organization. Leadership can be defined as influencing and motivating a group of individuals towards a common goal (Galinsky, Jordan & Sivanathan, 2014) Leaders are mostly viewed as representatives of a company, their
intented to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationship, work-related success, and favourable reputation” (Duffy, Ganster, Pagon, 2002). Tepper’s (2000) definition of undermining leadership refers “to subordinates perception of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviour, excluding physical contact”.
For this research, I will define supervisor undermining leadership as the emotional or psychological mistreatment of subordinates, with behaviours such as ridiculing subordinates in groups, withholding of important information, using disdainful language, threats and intimidation (Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002).
The relationship between Power and Supervisor Undermining Leadership
A supervisor in an organization has a certain power and use this power to achieve a mutual goal with his subordinates. Besides that, evidence suggested that power is a
pleasurable state (Williams, 2014). People who wield power, experience more positive emotion and optimism, enjoy a greater sense of control and feel more authentic about themselves (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Berdahl & Martorana, 2006). Within an
organization people who wield power are happier, healthier, experience less stress and are more satisfied with their jobs, compared to people at lower levels (Brown, Gardner, Oswald, & Qian, 2008; Marmot, 2004; Oshagbemi, 1997; Robie, Ryan, Schmeider, Parra, & Smith, 1998; Sherman et al., 2012). Also, power yield social status and material resources, like higher salaries (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).
Kipnis (1972) argues that the exercise of power corrupts. Those who hold power tend to value it above all other values and pursue additional power throughout their lives (Kipnis, 1972). Power corrupts in a work context because it provides the power holder with maximum temptation and the opportunity to line his pocket (Kipnis, 1972). The power holder is able to influence others because of his/her power position, which can lead to the believe that his/her ideas and views are superior to other persons (Kipnis, 1974). Also, power can be seen as corrupt since the power holder can devalued the worth of the less powerful and can increase the social distance (Kipnis, 1974).
According to Georgesen and Harris, it is not surprising that people in power reap the greatest benefits for themselves and are therefore more motivated to maintain their position of higher power (Georgesen & Harris, 2006). Theories showed that people in position of power are more likely to hold negative impressions of subordinates to project their own position (Georgesen & Harris, 2006), which can be seen as supervisor undermining leadership. For powerholders is it important to feel that their subordinates are less deserving of resources (Georgesen & Harris, 2006).
In conclusion I expected that supervisors are attached to the power they have, because humans naturally desire to maintain or increase power and status (Chapais 2015; Maslow 1943; Anderson et al. 2015) which can lead to increased supervisor undermining leadership.
Hypothesis 1: Power is associated with increased supervisor undermining leadership. The moderation role of Power Threat
When there arise potential threats to a leader’s power, I expected that retaining power will become a top priority for the supervisor. For the supervisor it will be most important to secure his/her own position and the need of other will be less important, when a leader own position is in doubt (Williams, 2014). The leadership role can switch to a more supervisor
demonstrated self-interest behaviour that helps them to secure their own position. The needs of the supervisor are more important than the needs of his/her supervisor (Williams, 2014). Also the Affective Events Theory, AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), states that certain emotions are likely to show certain behavioural reactions, so negative emotions can lead to more negative behaviour. Frustration is an example of an emotional response to negative work events, like job insecurity and threat to achieve individual goals (Anderson & Busman, 2002; Spector, 1997). Previous research has shown that frustration is likely to contribute to abusive behaviour, which is part of supervisor undermining leadership (e.g., Chen & Spector, 1992; Dollard et al., 1939; Fox & Spector, 1999; Storms & Spector, 1987).
Maner and Mead (2010) states that instability within the hierarchical power of a power holder, can be a signal of threat. This feeling of instability and threat may cause leaders to see other group member as potential threat to their power and to engage action to protect their power. Thus, power holder will prioritize their own power over the goals of the group, when their position was unstable and possibly threatened. Evidence shows that when the power of a leader was threatened by talented subordinates, he/she acted against them for instance by keeping valuable information to themselves, in order to make themselves look better (Maner & Mead, 2010). Also, Georgesen and Harris (2006) find that when a leaders power position was insecure, he/she evaluated subordinates more negatively to minimize the threat of their subordinates.
If the power of the supervisor is not threatened, is likely that is will not lead to
Retaining power will become a top priority for the supervisor and this will affect the way he/she lead the team (Williams, 2014). For the supervisor it will become more difficult to focus on the needs of the subordinates (Williams, 2014). The position of the supervisor will be more important, than the needs of the subordinates, which leads to supervisor undermining leadership (Maner & Mead, 2010).
Hypothesis 2: Power and power threat interact to influence supervisor undermining leadership, such that power is associated with increased supervisor undermining leadership, when power threat is high. Power and power threat do not interact, when power threat is low.
Methods Participants and Procedures
The data for this research is collected by contacting participants and asking their participation in study on leadership, executed by the HRM pre-master student of the university of Groningen. The group of students consisted of 21 students. Each student was expected to contact 10 pairs of supervisors and subordinates. The participants received a link to the online questionnaire, which consisted of measures like; hierarchical power, sense of power, power threat and supervisor undermining leadership.
Two different groups of participants were measured, namely supervisors and their respective subordinates. This makes that I used two different datasets to measure the
respond and were excluded. In total the data of 140 supervisors and their respective subordinate is used.
We can take a look at the further characterises of the sample, starting with the supervisors. The sample consisted of more male (58%) than female supervisors (42%). The mean age of the supervisors is 42.56 years (SD = 12,70). ). The questionnaire was available in either Dutch and English, so people of different nationality were able to participate, this hold for both supervisors as subordinates. The major part of the supervisor has a Dutch nationality (83%), 8% have a Chinese nationality and the other nationalities also hold 8%. Looking at the characteristics of the subordinates, there are more female subordinates (59%) than male subordinates (41%). The mean age of the subordinates is 34,88 years (SD = 14,22). The major part of the subordinates has a Dutch nationality (83%), 8% have a Chinese nationality and the other nationalities also hold 9%.
Measures
Unless indicated otherwise, all measures were rated on a scale form 1 (totally disagree) to (totally agree)
Power. I used hierarchal power to measure power. I measured power by asking the supervisor participants, ’At your place of work, what level are you in the organizational hierarchy?’, based on Lammers & Stokers (2011). Participants were given a scale from 0-100 on which they could indicate their power in the organization they work, where 0 is the bottom and 100 the top.
5, where 1 is not threatened and 5 is threatened to great extent. The Cronbach alpha for this measure was .94.
Supervisor undermining leadership. Based on Duffy et al. (2002) I asked
subordinated to indicate ‘how often had you supervisor intentionally par example you’re your feeling or insulted you?’. I measured supervisor undermining leadership with 13 of these types of items. The Cronbach alpha for this measure was .91.
Control variables. I considered the age, gender and organizational tenure of the supervisor as possible control variables. Because the meta-analyses (Mackey et al., 2015) suggest that these demographic variables may be associated with supervisor undermining leadership. So, the age, gender and organizational tenure are used as control variables to reduce biases.
Results Assumptions
To test my hypotheses, I will conduct a regression analysis. My research is based on the assumption that the dependent variable, in the research supervisor undermining leadership, is normally distributed. However, the normality test shows that supervisor undermining leadership doesn’t have a normal distribution. As presented in Figure 2, the distribution is positively skewed which is caused by the relatively low mean. In statistical manner, this could be explained by the test of normality being significant (KS = .00; SK = .00). From the
from 1 till 5 if they experience supervisor undermining leadership. In this case the participants scored low, meaning that they do not or experience a little supervisor undermining leadership. Since supervisor undermining leadership can be seen ass emotional or psychological
mistreatment of subordinates, it is more favourable that subordinates do not or do experience little supervisor undermining leadership and therefore score low on this variable, which can explain why the distribution is positively skewed.
Figure 2: Normal distribution for supervisor undermining leadership
Participants, in this case the subordinates, who scored three times above or below the standard deviation were considered as outliers. Using a boxplot, I found that supervisor undermining leadership has four outliers. These outliers influenced the analysis significantly, meaning that the conclusions differed, whether outliers were included or excluded. Since these four outliers can give a distorted image and influenced the analysis significant, I
Preliminary Analysis
There are some significant correlations, looking at Table 1. Hierarchical power is negatively correlated with supervisor undermining leadership (r =-.19, p =.03). This
contradicts Hypotheses 1 because a positive correlation was expected. Therefore, there is no support for Hypotheses 1, where power is associated with increased supervisor undermining leadership.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Age 2.73 1.26 2. Gender 1.42 0.50 -.076 3. Organizational Tenure 6.08 6.85 .29** .004 4. Hierarchical Power 73.59 22.57 .24** -.15 .22* 5. Power Threat 1.99 0.89 -.21* .09 -.14 -.23** 6. Supervisor Underming Leadership Orientation 1.28 0.28 -.062 .08 -.05 -.19* .14
Main Analysis
This section presents the finding of the main analyses. The main analyses followed from the regression analysis, using standardized predictor variables. To measure power, I used
hierarchical power. Therefore, I used hierarchical power (Table 2) for the regression analysis. I conducted a regression analysis using Process of Hayes (Hayes, Glynn & Huge, 2012; see Table 2), to test both hypotheses. My independent variable being hierarchical power, dependent variable being supervisor undermining leadership, moderator being power threat. Before conducting the regression analysis, I standardized my independent variables. This analysis revealed to have no support for Hypotheses 1, as there is a negative, not
Table 2
Regression Results for Two-way Interaction for Hierachical Power Predicting Supervisor Undermining Leadership Hierarchical Power -.04 (.03) -1.39 .17 Power Threat .05 (.03) 1.47 .15 Hierarchical Power X .09 (.03) 2.74 .01 Power Threat Notes. N = 133 . +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Simple slope analysis revealed, contrary to hypotheses 2, that hierarchical power is negatively associated with supervisor undermining leadership when power threat is low (-1 SD: B = -.14, SE = .04, p = .00). Hierarchical power is not associated with supervisor undermining leadership when power threat is high (+1 SD: B = .06, SE = .05, p = .28). Therefore, there is no support for my hypotheses 2. The graph (Figure 3) shows that, power threat interacts with power, such that when power threat is low, supervisor undermining leadership decreases. The effect size (R2) for hierarchical power is reported to be .05. This means that this interaction explains 5% of the leaders’ supervisor undermining leadership.
Figure 3: Graphical representation of the moderation effect
Discussion
This research set out to examine the effect of power threat on supervisor undermining leadership. I used hierarchical power to measure power. For hierarchical power there was no significant relation with supervisor undermining leadership, thus no support for my
hypotheses 1. Moreover, there is evidence indicating that hierarchical power is associated with increased supervisor undermining leadership, when power threat is high. Finally, I found no evidence to support that hierarchical power and power threat interact to influence
supervisor undermining leadership, when power threat is high, as was expected in hypothesis 2. However, there is evidence that when power threat is low, the more (hierarchical) power a supervisor has, the less supervisor undermining leadership he/she shows.
Theoretical contributions
Since, the hypotheses of this research were not supported, my research shows a slightly different pattern. My research differs from the main findings and theory about
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Low Hierarchical power High Hierarchical power
(hierarchical) power and supervisor undermining leadership and the moderation effect of power threat. My research shows that when power threat is low, the more power a supervisor has, the less undermining leadership he/she shows. Literature provide support for the
argument that supervisor undermining leadership will increases, when power threat is high (e.g., Chen & Spector, 1992; Dollard et al., 1939; Fox & Spector, 1999; Storms & Spector, 1987; Williams, 2014). Because retraining power will become a top priority, which makes it for supervisor more difficult to focus on the needs of subordinates, leading to supervisor undermining leadership. (Williams, 2014). A possible explanation is that this research has its limitations, these will be discussed in a later section. To date, focus has been mainly on identifying personality as predictor. This finding shines greater kight on the context in which power threat effect the way a leader contributes to undermining behaviour. If we know how leaders react in a certain situation where their power is threatened, there can be taken concrete action to increase undermining behaviour. From this research we now know that when a power threat is low, the more power a leader has, the less undermining leadership he/she shows. Despite the contradictions, this research can be seen as contribution to what is already know and even an inspiration for further research.
Practical contributions
Hierarchical power is associated with supervisor undermining leadership when power threat is low, as shown by my research. This means that when power threat is low, the more power a supervisor has, the less supervisor undermining leadership subordinates experience. So, the supervisors in the organization, who have less hierarchical power are more likely to show supervisor undermining leadership, when power threat is low.
themselves to be better than their subordinates (Williams, 2014). But at the other hand, they should not be so invulnerable that they no longer feel the need to account for their actions to others (Williams, 2014). According to Hoffman & Woehr (2006) the way to achieve this situation is to select leaders on person-organization and person-job fit in both hiring and promotion decision. Since, research showed that leaders who fit in well within their
organization and are skilled to perform their job, feel more self-efficacy and therefore have fewer doubts about their competences or hold on power (Gregory, Albritton & Osmonbekov, 2010).
Also important is the interaction effect of power threat. So, to keep undermining leadership behaviour low, power threat should also be kept low. According to Williams (2014), there are three sources op power, namely positional insecurity, self-doubt and low social status. Williams (2014) research shows when a supervisor experienced positional insecurity, their priority switch to retain and protect their power, not when there was no reason to doubt his/her position. Self-doubt can also be seen as an internal threat, when leaders are in doubt whether they truly have the ability and capacity to lead subordinates (Williams, 2014). The last source of power threat is about low social status. When a leader does not enjoy the respect of their subordinates, he/she can prioritize his/her own security over achieving groups goals.
Evidence shows that an organization can take moderate steps which can help to reduce the insecurities of a leader. The most important step is that organizations should make
promotion decisions based on established and merit-based criteria. This makes that a leaders’ position is seen as legitimate and therefore a leader feels less vulnerable for threats (Williams, 2014). Also, increasing the degree of fit between the demands of the job and the abilities of the leader (Guay, 2013), will decrease self-doubt among leaders (Williams, 2014).
undermining leadership, managers who are threatened are more likely to show undermining behaviour (Williams, 2014).
Limitations and future research.
Of course, my research is not without limitations. The first limitation is about the nationalities of the participants in the research. Most of the participants where Dutch, 83% of the participants, this can influence the outcome of the results. According to Hofstede (1980) the Netherlands scores low op power distance. “Power distance is about the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 1980). In the Netherlands, there is a collaborative work environment between supervisors and subordinates, which indicated low power distance. Research has shown that the Germanic countries score lower on power distance, than for Latin, Asian and African countries. Therefore, replication in other cultural context could eventually validate these research outcomes.
The gender of the participants can also be seen as a limitation. In this study, there were more female subordinates and more male supervisors. This can lead to gender bias (Glick P, Zion C, Nelson C, 1988), which poses a limitation to this study, since gender bias is not favourable. For future search, it’s interesting to balance the gender rate, to see if this leads to different results.
Moreover, this study is based on a convenience sample, which poses a possible sample bias. The sample is based on people from a target population. These people were easily
accessible and willing to participate in the study (Etikan, Musa & Alkassim, 2016). So, this group is not likely to serve as a representative of the population, which is a limitation.
power in different ways, par example as sense of power or management position. Future research can give more interesting information about the influence of different kinds of power on supervisor undermining leadership and the moderation effect of power threat.
Conclusion
Power is seen as a pleasurable state, so it is not rare that leaders are motivated to retain or gain power. Even over the heads of their subordinates, leading to supervisors undermining leadership. Previous research shows that supervisor undermining leadership is associated with negative consequences such as workplace deviance, psychological problems, reduced job satisfaction and job performance. Already existing literature suggests that when power threat is high, leaders are likely to behave more self-interest. Therefore, I expected that when power threat is high, the leader will show more supervisor undermining leadership, than when power threat is low. However, this research showed that that there is no significant relation between power (hierarchical power) and supervisor undermining leadership. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that power and power threat interact to influence supervisor undermining leadership, when power threat is high. However, there is evidence that when power threat is low, the more (hierarchical) power a supervisor has, the less supervisor undermining leadership he/she shows. Important is to note that for this resource the analyses were conducted without
outliers, therefore it can be seen as robust. My findings are challenging the existing literature, since the hypotheses of this research were not supported.
References
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 574– 601.
Anderson, C., Willer, R., Kilduff, G. J., & Brown, C. E. (2012). The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1077–1088.
Azjen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Carmeli, A., & Sheaffer, Z. 2009. How leadership characteristics affect organizational decline and downsizing. Journal of Business Ethics, 86: 363-378.
Chapais, B. (2015). Competence and the evolutionary origins of status and power in humans. Human Nature, 26, 161–183.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177–184.
Cho, Y., & Fast, N. J. 2012. Power, defensive denigration, and the assuaging effect of gratitude expression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48: 778-782. de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nauta, A. 2009. Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational
behavior: Implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 913-926.
Dencker, J. C. 2009 ‘‘Relative bargaining power, corporate restructuring and managerial incentives.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 54: 453–485.
Dollard,J.,Doob,L.W.,Miller,N.E.,Mowrer,O.H.,&Sears,R.R.(1939). Frustration and aggression. Oxford,England: Yale University.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. 2007. Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18: 207-216. Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E.,
Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., et al. (2010). Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1085–1103.
Emerson, R. M. 1962 ‘‘Power-dependence relations.’’ American Sociological Review, 27: 31– 41.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. 2009. When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence, and
aggression. Psychological Science, 20: 1406-1413
Feenstra, S., Jordan, J., Walter, F., Yan, J. and Stoker, J.I. (2017). The hazard of teetering at the top and being tied to the bottom: The interactive relationship of power, stability, and social dominance orientation with work stress. Applied Psychology, 66, 653-673.
Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178-190
Ferguson, M. J., & Bargh, J. A. 2004. Liking is for doing: The effects of goal pursuit on automatic evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87: 557-572. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration–aggression. Journal of
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.
Gerbasi, M. E., & Prentice, D. A. 2013. The self- and other-interest inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105: 495-514.
Glick P, Zion C, Nelson C. What mediates sex discrimination in hiring decisions? J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;55:178–186.
Gregory, B. T., Albritton, M. D., & Osmonbekov, T. 2010. The mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relationships between P-O fit, job satisfaction, and in-role performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 639-647.
Guay, R. P. 2013. The relationship between leader fit and transformational leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28: 55-73.
Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Wu, G. 1999. Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 38: 79-109.
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. 2006. A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68: 389-399.
Hofstede, G. (1980). H.(1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Workrelated Values. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage Publications, 294.
Hollander, E. P. (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 485– 537). New York: Random House.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. 2011. Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 851-862.
Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. 2013. Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24: 316-331.
Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. (2013). Abusive supervision and employee well-being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied Psychology, 62(2), 308-329. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00520.x
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. 1981. Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90: 125-152.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R.E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2015). Abusive supervision: A meta- analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management. Dio:
10.1177/0149206315573997
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 351-398.
Maner, Jon K., and Nicole L. Mead. “The Essential Tension between Leadership and Power: When Leaders Sacrifice Group Goals for the Sake of Self-Interest.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 99, no. 3, Sept. 2010, pp. 482– 497. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/a0018559.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. 2013. A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34: 120-137.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. Maslow, A. H. 1942. Liberal leadership and personality. Freedom, 2: 27-30.
Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. 2012. CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65: 565-596. Pinter, B., Insko, C. A., Wildschut, T., Kirchner, J. L., Montoya
Pfeffer, J., and W. L. Moore 1980 ‘‘Power in university budgeting: A replication and extension.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 637–653.
purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4. Richman, L. S., & Leary, M. R. 2009. Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism,
and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116: 365-383.
Salancik, G. R., and J. Pfeffer 1974 ‘‘The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of a university.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 453–473. Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. 2011. Cognition-based and affect-based trust as
mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 863-871.
Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioural reactions: The moderating effect of locus of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 227–234.
Tepper, B. (2000). Consequences of Abusive Supervision. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
