The Relationship between Power and Distrust The Moderating Role of Social Dominance Orientation

The Relationship between Power and Distrust The Moderating Role of Social Dominance Orientation

University of Groningen Research Paper for Pre-MSc HRM

EBS013A10

25-05-2020

Kirsten Menger S4179870

k.m.menger@student.rug.nl

Supervisor: Sanne Feenstra, MSc.

Abstract

Businesses are ought to deal with distrustful environments as distrust has a hazardous impact on organizational performance. However, power holders easily distrust others as they intend to protect the positive externalities of their power. Considering the harmfulness of distrust, it is important to understand the causes. Thus, this research focuses on the effect of different perspectives of power on distrust, specifically distinguished by hierarchical power and sense of power. Additionally, the moderating role of social dominance orientation (SDO) is

included to examine when this relation appears. Therefore, in particular, I propose that power is positively associated with distrust, in which power and SDO interact to influence distrust, such that power is associated with increased distrust when SDO is high, while it is not associated with distrust when SDO is low. The sample contains 169 participants in total, consisting of supervisors in different work fields. Ultimately, the results demonstrate that power in its entirety is rather negatively associated with distrust. Moreover, it does not

confirm the interaction effect of power and SDO on distrust. Nevertheless, the findings reveal that SDO and distrust are simultaneously related to one other. At last, contributions to both theory and practice are included.

Keywords:

Hierarchical power; sense of power; distrust; social dominance orientation

Introduction

Trustworthiness in organizations is required to enhance long-term success (Sousa- Lima, Michel, & Caetano, 2013), as a trustful environment defines the greatest workplace and is the main driver of successful achievements (Gould-Williams, 2003). As such, positive relations among employees are essential to realize effective communication and collaboration between departments and hierarchies (Lyman, 2003). However, unlike this established

importance, building a certain degree of trust seems easier said than done. A prominent statement of such failure comes from a global study of PwC, which stresses that more than half of employees experience untrustworthiness in their respective organizations (Bingham, 2017). Moreover, Morris (1995) previously discovered another 56% of employees that experience a problematic lack of trust. Consequently, Lyman (2003) found that distrust negatively affects performance by increases in absenteeism, higher turnover rates, and acts of resistance to change. Hence, distrust causes enormous harm to organizations as a whole.

Considering these damaging consequences of distrust for organizations, it is of great importance to understand the main causes. Research suggests that this phenomenon often relates to power holders that distrust their respective subordinates (Mooijman, Van Dijk, Van Dijk, & Ellemers, 2019). Specifically, it is mainly perceived as a power-loss concern once they have experienced the benefits that come along with power. In such a relationship, the more powerful individual mostly obtains a more advantageous position in relation to the subordinate. As an example, obtaining power often leads to positive emotions such as amusement and happiness and it sometimes even reduces negative feelings like embarrassment and anger (Bombari, Schmid Mast, & Bachmann, 2017).

Thus, to date, considerable literature has established the association between power

and distrust in which power holders tend to protect their position through distrusting their

respective subordinates. Yet, there is relatively little understanding of when and when not

power increases distrust. Building on the social dominance theory (SDT), referring to the preference of hierarchical differentiation, the present research proposes that the level of social dominance orientation (SDO) acts as a moderating role in this relation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Therefore, present research examines different psychological needs and motivations of individuals in this relation (Gosling, 2001). The first intention of this research is to confirm that power is indeed positively associated with distrust. Secondly, the aim is to show when this occurs. In particular, I propose that power and the level of SDO interact to influence distrust, such that power is associated with increased distrust when SDO is high, while power is not associated with distrust when SDO is low.

Concerning theoretical contributions, present research replicates the relation of power and distrust which strengthens confidence in this construct (Assendorpf et al., 2013).

Moreover, it provides a better understanding of this construct by including different

perspectives of power. Additionally, it further extends previous research on when this specific relation occurs. In terms of contributions for practitioners, present research formulates

important contributions on how to possibly deal with the issue of distrust in their

organizations. For instance, it informs practitioners to implement a more focused approach on the level of SDO of potential candidates during the hiring process.

Finally, to examine the predicted moderating role of SDO on the relation between power and distrust, as illustrated in Figure 1, I will use survey data to collect information of supervisors in various industries.

Figure 1: The predicted moderating role of social dominance orientation on the relation

between power and distrust.

Theory and Hypotheses Definitions

To clarify, I will define all relevant variables incorporated in present research. In particular, these include power, SDO, and distrust. These various definitions distinguish themselves by literature, and, based thereon, the perspectives necessary are identified.

Power. Considerable literature defines power, in which some studies focus on

materialistic conceptions and others tend to emphasize more on social relations (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). To differentiate, materialistic notions particularly refer to the level of hierarchy and thus the control over such things as resources, rewards, and

punishments (Emerson, 1962; Dépret & Fiske, 1993), whereas social aspects indicate a certain sense of power (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012). This so-called sense of power relates to the subjective feeling of someone’s power and influence, irrespective of its trueness.

Additionally, the social aspect of power is often defined as one’s capacity to influence others (French & Raven, 1959; Keltner et al., 2003). However, certain studies include both

perspectives of its materialistic and social features, among which the research of Magee and Galinsky (2008, p. 361) that refers to power as “an asymmetric control over valued resources in social relations” (for similar definitions: Blau, 1964, 1977; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978;

Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). From here on, I will consider the definition of both perspectives and generally refer to it as power.

Social dominance orientation. The SDT developed by Sidanius and Pratto (1993)

serves as a prolongation of the social identity theory (Abrams & Hogg, 1990), and relates to ethical conduct. It proposes the extent of an individual’s preference for inequality among social groups, which could be most importantly divided into hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating behaviour. An individual that stimulates attitudes that create

hierarchical differences in terms of dominance is high in SDO (Hiel & Mervielde, 2002), and

in contrast, an individual with a low degree of SDO tries to prevent these hegemonic relationships and would encourage group-based social equality instead (Pratto et al., 1994).

Therefore, the indication of one’s SDO in terms of similarities or differences in hierarchical context is important for present research.

Distrust. Starting with distrust’s contradiction, to elaborate as clearly as possible on

its definition itself later on, trust is described as the willingness to open oneself up to be vulnerable for uncontrollable actions of others (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007).

Moreover, this research stresses that trust consists of another component, namely goodwill, which relates to the expectations of someone else’s benevolent intentions (for similar definitions: Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006; Zand & Dale, 1997). Another study of Lount and Petitt (2012) states that these components rely on one another as goodwill increases trust. On the contrary, Webster’s dictionary defines distrust as “the lack or absence of trust”, relevant for the following sections.

The Relationship between Power and Distrust

Substantial literature and theories already explain how power is able to influence individuals’ psychological states and behavior (Keltner et al., 2003; Lammers, Stoker, &

Stapel, 2010; Van Knippenberg, & Hogg, 2004). Separately seen from the overall benefits of power distinctions for organizations (Brower, Lester, Korsgaard, & Dineen, 2009; Weber, 1946), power holders experience many benefits themselves, such as being able to satisfy personal goals rather than others’ desires (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003), greater control over resources, and an increase in rewards and freedom (Keltner et al., 2003). All advantages of a powerful status positively stimulate one’s well-being as it results in

psychological properties like an increase in self-confidence, optimistic attitude, and positive

emotions (Bombari et al., 2017; Galinsky, Jordan, & Sivanathan, 2008).

Taken the positive impacts of power into consideration, individuals mostly strive to maintain their position as they are often afraid to lose it (Fehr, Herz, & Wilkening, 2013).

Hence, power holders are motivated to protect their authority once it is obtained. Distrusting respective subordinates is seen as such a protection strategy. Farrell (2004) proposes a certain point in the relationship of power and trust in which someone is no longer able to ensure reasonable engagement with subordinates due to their power. Occasionally, great power even expels trust, in which the number of risks taken by employees lowers when distrust increases (Schoorman et al., 2007). Moreover, recent research (Inesi, Gruenfeld, & Galinsky, 2012;

Mooijman, Van Dijk, Van Dijk, & Ellemers, 2015) suggests that leaders might act unethically due to the degree of power, for instance by taking control over its competing associates.

Mooijman and colleagues further extended the research in 2019, in which they establish that power holders often experience power-loss concerns due to the benefits that their position brings, which results in higher distrust in work relationships. This is related to power holders being more vulnerable to lose their position if trusting those who compete for the same resources. Sharing resources usually indicates a risk of losing control. Hence, based on these theoretical considerations, it is examined that power is associated with increased distrust due to power holders protecting their position. By way of replication, the first aim of present research is to propose this important finding in an organizational field setting.

Therefore, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1: Power is positively associated with distrust.

The Moderating Role of Social Dominance Orientation

Present research further builds on the SDT of Pratto and Sidanius (1993) as a

moderating role in the aforementioned relation. This theory extends the social identity theory

of Abrams and Hogg (1990) and rather focuses on preferences for similarities or differences

in societies. It determines interactions between social group processes based on influences of

cultural, ideological, political, and structural aspects. These social experiences and individual traits are a part of the constructed behavior and lead to a distinction between more and less powerful groups in society (Henry, Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 2005). In social context, the attitudes and behaviors supporting either hierarchical or equal relations are measured by individuals’ SDO scale (Pratto et al., 1994).

Consistent with Duriez and Van Hiel (2002), the high raters are less likely to share their valued resources as they would like to maintain their powerful positions while the low scorers stimulate to share the associated resources to support an even balanced distribution.

Moreover, groups that prefer social inequalities try to establish their dominance and superiority by the creation of competitive desires, which affects social stability and group cohesion (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). Consequently, the distinction between high and low groups disengages even further as this competitiveness of individuals high in SDO increases aversion from the ones low in SDO.

In accordance with these theoretical viewpoints, present research includes SDO as a moderating factor between power and distrust as it might influence power holders’ motivation to protect their position by means of distrusting their subordinates. From an organizational perspective, there is a distinction between hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating manners (Pratto et al., 1994). Following that, power holders high in SDO lead to great

protection of power, and distrust is then likely to increase. On the contrary, power holders low in SDO tend to less value power and therefore not expected to be related in this concern.

Accordingly, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: Power and SDO interact to influence distrust, such that power is

associated with increased distrust when SDO is high, while power is not associated

with distrust when SDO is low.

Method Participants and Procedure

The data of present research were collected by 21 students of the Pre-Master Human Resource Management, who were asked to contact individuals to participate in a study on

“Predictors and Outcomes of Leadership”. Eventually, regardless of different sectors, each student was requested to find around ten supervisors willing to participate. The ones that agreed to contribute to the study received a link to an online questionnaire about leadership behaviours, available in either English or Dutch. In accordance with prior research, the questionnaire is conducted in such a way that satisfies various aspects of leadership, among with power, distrust, and SDO relevant for this study. The inclusion of all dependent and independent variables measured supports reliability and reduces any potential biases (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

In total, 228 participants were invited with the request to complete the online questionnaire. The response rate was 74.1% and, therefore, the total inclusion of the final sample contained 169 supervisors. However, some exclusions had to be made due to some missing or incorrect data. The specific amount of exclusions per item will be mentioned when relevant.

To provide more insight into the final sample, I will elaborate on some characteristics of the participants. The sample was dominated by the Dutch nationality, with more than 80%.

Other nationalities included 9% Chinese and the final 10% was rated as other. Gender wise,

the majority of the sample was male, namely around 60% of the total. When looking at the

age distribution, 25% of the participants were between 18 and 30 years of age, 23% were

between 31 and 40 years of age, 21% were between 41 and 50 years of age, 26% were

between 51 and 60 years of age, and lastly, 5% were between 61 and 100 years of age. Here,

the average amount turned out to be 42 years of age. Concerning the job characteristics, 12%

did not currently hold a management position, while 23% occupied a low management position, 44% middle management, and 21% top management. Thus, the majority of the participants focused on middle management at that time. Finally, the mainstream of roughly 70% obtained a permanent fulltime contract of 36 hours or more per week.

Measures

The following measures, unless indicated otherwise, are carried out on a 1 to 5 Likert scale that indicates the extent to which one disagrees or agrees with a particular statement (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither disagree nor agree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree).

Power. I distinguished power into two separate properties, namely hierarchical power and sense of power, as mentioned earlier. In accordance with prior research, I measured hierarchical power with the help of 3 different items (Lammers et al., 2010). First, participants were asked to indicate their position respective to the organization’s hierarchy from a 0 to 100 slider scale (0 = bottom; 100 = top), followed by a range of scales that implies the number of employees being supervised (no employees; 1-5 employees; 6-10 employees; 11-15

employees; 16-20 employees; more than 20 employees), and at final a question on the current management position (no management; lower management; middle management; top

management). Besides separately examining these measures of hierarchical power, the variable is captured as a combined measure later on in the main analysis, after standardizing and averaging the corresponding items. However, due to relatively few questions on

hierarchical power, the reliability is rather low (α = .58). With regard to the second property

of power, I measured sense of power by 8 items (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006). Example

items are: (1) “In my place of work, I can get people to listen to what I say”, (2) “In my place

of work, I think I have a great deal of power”, and (3) “In my place of work, I get to make the

decisions if I want to” (α = .71).

Social dominance orientation. I measured participants’ scale of SDO with the help of 14 items (Pratto et al., 1994). Example items include: (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”, and (3) “It is okay if some groups have more of a chance in life than others” (α = .80).

Distrust. Based on Fenigstein and Vanable (1992), I measured distrust using 8 statements. Sample items are: (1) “Some people in this organization have tried to steal my ideas and take credit for them”, (2) “Most people in this organization will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage, rather than lose it”, and (3) “I often wonder what hidden reason another person in this organization may have for doing something nice for you”

(α = .86).

Control variables. I considered participants’ age, gender, the number of years

working for their current employer and the number of years fulfilling their current position as

possible control variables since previous research indicated that these factors could have a

significant influence on the extent of distrust (Brower et al., 2009). Particularly, empirical

evidence indicates that age is an important predictor of exposing unethical behaviour in line

with distrust (Eweje & Brunton, 2010; Perryer, Scott-Ladd, & Leighton, 2012). In terms of

sexual differences, Buchan, Croson, and Solnick (2008) found that gender influences distrust

in such a way that women distrust more than men. Consequently, it turned out that women

tend to be more trustworthy than men (1 = male; 2 = female). Furthermore, Kramer (1999)

designates that the extent of initial distrust is related to the duration of employment as the

level of distrust of managers at the time of hire is considerably higher than managers that

already have been on the job for more than one year. Therefore, I included these as possible

control variables to check whether or not they influence the results of present research.

Results Assumptions

To test my hypotheses, I will conduct multiple regression analyses, presented in the following section. This type of analysis requires that several assumptions are being met (Chappel & Creel, 2006). Hence, present research is based on my assumption that distrust was normally distributed. Nevertheless, taken the average, the executed histogram did not

illustrate a normal distribution. As presented in Figure 2, the distribution was positively skewed because of its relatively low mean. In a statistical manner, this could be explained by the tests of normality being significant (KS = .00; SW = .00). Moreover, this is statistically proven by its degree of Skewness (S = .95, SE = .19) and Kurtosis (K = .34, SE = .37), as the requirement of these numbers being smaller than its own standard error only applied to the extent of Kurtosis. At last, only one statistical value was considered as an outlier, explicitly 4.38, due to its standard deviation being three times higher than its mean (SD = .76, M = 1.91). Despite the non-normally distributed data, previous research indicated that regression analyses could still be performed without any problems, and, therefore, I will continue analysing the results of present research.

Figure 2: Histogram showing the distribution of distrust.

Preliminary Analysis

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all study variables. As mentioned before, a few exclusions had to be made since some items were not completed correctly. Hence, the sample of these incorporated variables ranged from 152 to 169 participants per item. The performed Pearson correlation analysis showed some significant correlations. In importance, I concentrated on the ones with respect to distrust and power, divided into hierarchical power and sense of power.

First, as distinguished earlier, the correlation of hierarchical power with distrust was measured separately by hierarchical level (r = -.18, p = .02), span of control (r = -.06, p = .46), and management position (r = -.12, p = .11). However, only hierarchical level turned out significantly in a way that was negatively correlated with distrust. In terms of feeling

powerful, the related variable sense of power was significantly negatively correlated with distrust too (r = -.32, p = .00). Overall, power is thus negatively associated with distrust, as opposed to Hypothesis 1, where power was expected to be positively associated with distrust.

With respect to the included control variables, only age (r = -.22, p = .01) and gender (r = -.15, p = .05) appeared to be significantly associated with distrust in a negatively manner.

Thus, only these two variables are included as covariates in the upcoming main analysis. At last, interestingly enough to mention, the analysis revealed a positive significant correlation between SDO and distrust (r = .20, p = .01). Hence, as expected due to prior studies, distrust is positively associated with SDO. I will further elaborate on this relationship in the

discussion section.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age 2.63 1.26 - - - - - - - - - -

2. Gender 1.43 .50 -.05 - - - - - - - - -

3. Current employer 11.61 10.50 .55

.22

- - - - - - - -

4. Current position 6.00 6.88 .30

.04 .42

- - - - - - -

5. Hierarchical level 73.50 23.29 .27

-.15 .06 .22

- - - - - -

6. Span of control 4.00 1.77 .11 -.06 .18

.01 .18

- - - - -

7. Management position 2.74 .93 .35

-.18

.06 .15 .53

.24

- - - -

8. Sense of power 4.01 .55 .28

-.08 .09 .12 .37

.19

.26

- - -

9. Social dominance orientation 2.44 .61 -.13 -.29

-.23

.01 .03 -.19

.04 -.02 - -

10. Distrust 1.91 .76 -.22

-.15

-.11 -.09 -.18

-.06 -.12 -.32

.20

-

Notes. N ranges from 152 to 169.

p < .10,

p < .05,

p < .01. For age, 1 = 18-30 years; 2 = 31-40 years; 3 = 41-50 years; 4 = 41-60 years;

5 = 61-100 years. For gender, 1 = male; 2 = female. For current employer and current position, scale ranges from 0-30 years. For hierarchical level, 1 = bottom; 100 = top. For span of control, 1 = none; 2 = 1-5 subordinates; 3 = 6-10 subordinates; 4 = 11-15 subordinates; 5 = 16-20 subordinates; 6 = more than 20 subordinates. For management position, 1 = no management; 2 = lower

management; 3 = middle management; 4 = top management. For sense of power, social dominance orientation, and distrust, 1 = strongly

disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.

Main Analysis

This section includes the main analysis of the study to test both hypotheses. It consists of multiple regression analyses based on Hayes’ Process (Hayes, Glynn, & Huge, 2012).

Initially, all predictor variables were standardized. Still, power is operationalized in two separate measures, specifically into hierarchical power and sense of power. From here on, as discussed earlier, hierarchical power refers to the average of all standardized scores, as it was primarily measured separately by hierarchical level, span of control, and management

position. Hence, to test my predictions, I conducted two separate moderated hierarchical regression analyses.

Hierarchical power. To test both hypotheses related to hierarchical power, I first

conducted a regression of hierarchical power on distrust. Table 2 depicts the results of this

particular analysis. It did not reveal any support for Hypothesis 1, that power is positively

associated with distrust, as there was no relationship between hierarchical power and distrust

(B = -.13, SE = .08, p = .12). Additionally, the relationship between SDO and distrust was not

officially confirmed, however, the significance is reported marginally (B = .19, SE = .11, p =

.09). Given Hypothesis 2, that power and SDO interact with one another to influence distrust,

such that power is associated with increased distrust when SDO is high, while power is not

associated with distrust when SDO is low, the analysis did provide evidence as the interaction

effect was not confirmed (B = -.06, SE = .15, p = .69).

Table 2

Regression Results for Two-way Interaction for Hierarchical Power Predicting Distrust

Variables B (SE) t p

Age -.13 (.06) -2.17 .03

Gender -.12 (.06) -1.97 .04

Social dominance orientation .19 (.11) 1.69 .09

Hierarchical power -.13 (.08) -1.56 .12

Hierarchical power × social dominance orientation -.06 (.15) -.40 .69 Notes. N = 165.

Figure 3: Graphical representation of social dominance orientation on relation between hierarchical power and distrust.

Sense of power. To examine the effect of sense of power, I conducted similar

regression analysis related to sense of power on distrust, as presented in Table 3. Analysis revealed, contrary to Hypothesis 1, that sense of power is instead negatively associated with distrust (B = -.42, SE = .10, p = .00). Furthermore, it did not reveal a relationship between SDO and distrust, however, it is slightly reported above significance (B = .19, SE = .11, p = .08). Unexpectedly, with respect to Hypothesis 2, that power and SDO interact to influence distrust, such that power is associated with increased distrust when SDO is high, while power

1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5

Low HP High HP

Distrust

Low SDO High SDO

is not associated with distrust when SDO is low, it did not confirm an interaction effect between sense of power and SDO predicting distrust (B = -.21, SE = .16, p = .21).

Table 3

Regression Results for Two-way Interaction for Sense of Power Predicting Distrust

Variables B (SE) t p

Age -.09 (.06) -1.57 .12

Gender -.12 (.06) -2.10 .04

Social dominance orientation .19 (.11) 1.78 .08

Sense of power -.42 (.10) -4.33 .00

Sense of power × social dominance orientation -.21 (.16) -1.27 .21 Notes. N = 165.

Figure 4: Graphical representation of social dominance orientation on relation between sense of power and distrust.

Relating both regression analyses, there is neither support for Hypothesis 1 nor 2. Still, to clarify, the interaction effects of both hierarchical power and sense of power are

respectively illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. Notably, the coefficients of determination of hierarchical power (!

= .12), as well as sense of power (!

= .21), indicated relatively small

1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5

Low SOP High SOP

Distrust

Low SDO High SDO

effect sizes. This determines that the differences are quite unimportant as these interactions respectively explain 12 and 21% of a supervisors’ distrust.

Finally, in terms of the control variables, age was not significantly associated with distrust within the regression focused on sense of power. Therefore, I have also performed the second regression analysis with the exclusion of age as a covariate to avoid biased

approximations (Becker, 2005). However, the conclusions of both statistical outcomes did not differ significantly whether it was included or excluded as a covariate. Consequently, I have integrated both control variables as covariates in the main analysis. The same counts for the outlier that was established earlier as it did not alter the pattern of the substantive conclusions.

Discussion

Primarily, the research focused on the effect of power on distrust. Accordingly, Hypothesis 1 formulated that power is positively associated with distrust. In order to examine this relationship, power was distinguished in two measures, namely hierarchical power and sense of power. The division of these types did not considerably differ in terms of the preliminary analysis, as they were both being negatively correlated to distrust. Although the main analysis revealed a strong negative relation between sense of power and distrust as well, it did not clarify any relation between hierarchical power and distrust. These findings

confirmed the contrary to the expectation that power is positively associated with distrust and, therefore, there is no evidence for Hypothesis 1.

In terms of the moderating role of SDO, Hypothesis 2 stated that power and SDO

interact with one another to influence distrust, such that power is associated with increased

distrust when SDO is high, while power is not associated with distrust when SDO is low. The

results of the preliminary analysis suggested that a higher SDO is correlated with higher

distrust, as was partly assumed due to prior research. Unexpectedly, the main analysis did not

confirm an interaction effect between any of the two power distinctions and SDO. Thus, as

predicted, distrust is certainly influenced by SDO as it increases or decreases simultaneously, however, power acts independently as it does not interact with SDO to influence this

direction. Therefore, comprehensively, it did not provide support for Hypothesis 2 either.

Theoretical Contributions

Starting off with the most important theoretical contribution, present research has established a different perspective on the relation between power and distrust due to the findings that contradict prior literature. To date, available theories only provide support for a positively associated relation, in which an increase in power ensures greater distrust (Farrell, 2004; Fehr et al., 2013; Inesie et al., 2012; Mooijman et al., 2015; Mooijman et al., 2019;

Schoorman et al., 2007). Hence, present finding suggests that the relationship between power and distrust is more nuanced than previously believed.

Another finding of present research is in line with prior studies, however, it shows a slightly different pattern. Previous theories roughly explained that high SDO relates to autonomous positions, while low SDO rather relates to power sharing (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007; Duckitt, 2001; Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Pratto et al., 1994). Hence, power and SDO usually interact with one another to influence the degree of distrust. The finding of current research suggests that SDO and distrust are indeed positively correlated, nevertheless, it is separated from the interaction effect of power being included. Thus, this serves as an additional, yet essential, theoretical contribution, especially in line with the research of Duckitt and Sibley (2007).

Practical Contributions

While previous research indicated that power results in distrust by a manner of protection (Mooijman et al., 2019), present findings opposed that power is negatively

associated with distrust. Hence, in order for organizations to manage distrust, they should pay

specific attention to the amount of power that their supervisors obtain. In psychological

context, one’s sense of power relates to their status perceived by others (Anderson et al., 2012; Bugental & Lewis, 1999). In turn, those who feel powerful in terms of one’s ability to influence others, usually perform in a way that consistently increases their actual power (Bandura, 1999; Smith, Wigboldus, & Dijksterhuis, 2008). As Buss and Craik (1980) found that individuals high in dominance rather have greater ability to influence others than introvert people, organizations should take this perception along in their hiring process. At the same time, this implication counts for individuals high in SDO as the findings of present research suggest that this directly relates to a higher degree of distrust as well. For instance, they could decide to solely hire employees with the desired level of SDO.

Another approach for organizations to manage distrust by the means of indicating these types of individuals is to critically inspect the design of their current organizational structure. Due to the confirmed relation between SDO and distrust, in which people high in SDO cause more distrust, these perspectives should be taken into consideration. In order to avoid only having employees high in SDO working together in the same department, which is unhealthy for an organization’s performance (Hing, Bobocel, Zanna, & McBride, 2007), organizations should rather balance their structure for effective coordination between individuals with different preferences indicated by their level of SDO (Aiello, Pratto, &

Pierro, 2013). Moreover, trainings programs on for instance cultural norms and values could be provided such that the negative consequences of distrust muffle and organizations do not have to suffer to the most possible extent (Dumontheil, 2014).

Limitations and Future Research

There are some limitations of present research that might not have generated the most

relevant results as possible. However, these might simultaneously generate openings to

elaborate further on in future research. First of all, I considered the use of single-source data

as one of the most important limitations of my research (Holmbeck, Li, Schurman, Friedman,

& Coakley, 2002). As only one group was included in the sample, namely supervisors, this might have influenced the results significantly. Moreover, the sampling method resulted in a sample bias as the students mostly invited individuals in their own network, such as friends and family. Hence, these individuals had a higher sampling probability than others (Clifford, French, & Valentine, 2010). Additionally, the quantitative method by the use of the

questionnaire is called a single-method approach limitation. It would be useful to combine this with a qualitative method, also referred to as triangulation, in order to manage different perspectives as well as to deepen the understanding of various motives (Jack & Raturi, 2006).

With regard to the method section of present research, I considered some more detailed aspects that could be improved. First of all, the sample size (N = 169) was not realistic compared to the amount of all supervisors present anywhere in the world. Also, the effect sizes were reported relatively small. Both these sizes might have influenced the

statistical significance, and, therefore, the statistical power of the findings in general (Sullivan

& Feinn, 2012). More specifically, the hierarchical power was rated with a rather low Cronbach’s alpha score due to relatively few items on this matter (α = .58). To increase this reliability, more relevant questions on the test should be included (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

Furthermore, as most of the participants were Dutch, more than 80% of the total, it might have influenced the results unlikely than other nationalities due to different norms and values. Possibly, this relates to existing literature conducted in the United States of America, while present research sample mainly concentrates on Dutch nationality. For instance,

Hofstede’s dimensions indicate a relatively low degree of power distance for the Netherlands

(Hofstede, 1980). This means power is generally distributed evenly according to hierarchy of

authority. Additionally, not all items were filled in by each participant as it was not mandatory

to fill in a question to continue to the next one of the questionnaire. This resulted in some

missing or incorrect data. Another factor that might have influenced the results is the non- normally distributed data related to distrust, as my initial assumption on this was incorrect.

Finally, in addition to take into consideration the aforementioned limitations, future studies could examine the relation between power and distrust, potentially including the moderating role of SDO, in an organizational setting. Furthermore, there could be another potential moderating factor in the association between power and distrust, especially as present research found the opposed direction of this relation. As an example, Natte and Social (2015) provided a possible moderator to investigate the positive association between power and distrust, namely shared identity.

Conclusion

Distrust is a crucial phenomenon in today’s businesses. It often results in tearing organizational cultures down which might result in great damage to organizations at large.

Thus, considerable research on distrust has already been conducted. Many theories suggest that distrust is highly related to power as it is in that context used as a protection strategy.

Powerful people usually protect their position once they have experienced the priorities that it

comes with. However, as a contradiction to these prior findings, I conclude that power is

negatively associated with distrust. Although formal hierarchical power seems slightly

negatively associated with distrust compared to sense of power, the feeling of being powerful

is likely to influence distrust in a negative direction, and therefore, power is overall negatively

related to distrust. Additionally, building on the SDT, another predictor of distrust depends on

the level of SDO. Generally, individuals high in SDO rather show more distrust than scorers

low in SDO. Unexpectedly, contradicting existing literature, power and SDO do not interact

with one other to influence distrust. Therefore, overall, I determine power and SDO as two

important interpreters to manage distrust in the organizational culture and, in turn, either

realize organizational success or failure.

References

Abrams, D. E., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. Springer-Verlag Publishing.

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.

Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511-536.

Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313-344.

Assendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J., Fiedler, K., Fiedler, S., Funder, D. C., Kliegl, R., Nosek, B. A., Perugini, M., Roberts, B. W., Schmitt, M., Van Aken, M. A. G., Weber, H., & Wicherts, J. M. (2013).

Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 108-119.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. Handbook of Personality, 2, 154- 196.

Becker, W. (2005). Advanced time-correlated single photon counting techniques (Vol. 81).

Springer Science & Business Media.

Bingham, S. (2017). If employees don’t trust you, it’s up to you to fix it. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/01/if-employees-dont-trust-you-its- up-to-you-to-fix-it.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193-206.

Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure (Vol.

7). New York: Free Press.

Bombari, D., Schmid Mast, M., & Bachmann, M. (2017). Felt power explains the link between position power and experienced emotions. Emotion, 17(1), 55.

Brower, H. H., Lester, S. W., Korsgaard, M. A., & Dineen, B. R. (2009). A closer look at trust between managers and subordinates: Understanding the effects of both trusting and being trusted on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Management, 35(2), 327- 347.

Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T., & Solnick, S. (2008). Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game. Journal of Economic Behavior &

Organization, 68(3-4), 466-476.

Bugental, D. B., & Lewis, J. C. (1999). The paradoxical misuse of power by those who see themselves as powerless: How does it happen? Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 51- 64.

Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1980). The frequency concept of disposition: dominance and prototypically dominant acts 1. Journal of Personality, 48(3), 379-392.

Chappel, O. A., & Creel, C. (2006). U.S. Patent No. 7,092,895. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Clifford, N., French, S., & Valentine, G. (2010). Getting started in geographical research: how this book can help. Key Methods in Geography, 2, 3-15.

Dépret, E., & Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and power: Some cognitive consequences of social structure as a source of control deprivation. Control Motivation and Social Cognition (pp. 176-202). Springer, New York, NY.

Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113). Academic

Press.

Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality:

Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 21(2), 113-

130.

Dumontheil, I. (2014). Development of abstract thinking during childhood and adolescence:

The role of rostrolateral prefrontal cortex. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 10, 57-76.

Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism. A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(7), 1199-1213.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 31-41.

Eweje, G., & Brunton, M. (2010). Ethical perceptions of business students in a New Zealand university: do gender, age and work experience matter? Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(1), 95-111.

Farrell, H. (2004). Trust, distrust, and power. Distrust, 85105.

Fehr, E., Herz, H., & Wilkening, T. (2013). The lure of authority: Motivation and incentive effects of power. American Economic Review, 103(4), 1325-59.

Fenigstein, A., & Vanable, P. A. (1992). Paranoia and self-consciousness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 129.

French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. (1959). The bases of social power. Classics of Organization Theory, 7, 311-320.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453.

Galinsky, A. D., Jordan, J., & Sivanathan, N. (2008). Harnessing power to capture

leadership. Leadership at the Crossroads, 1, 283-299.

Gosling, S. D. (2001). From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 45.

Gould-Williams, J. (2003). The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior performance: a study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 28-54.

Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. E. (2012). Cautions regarding the interpretation of regression coefficients and hypothesis tests in linear models with interactions.

Henry, P. J., Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (2005). Social dominance orientation,

authoritarianism, and support for intergroup violence between the Middle East and America. Political Psychology, 26(4), 569-584.

Hiel, A. V., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Effects of ambiguity and need for closure on the acquisition of information. Social Cognition, 20(5), 380-408.

Hing, S., Leanne, S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., & McBride, M. V. (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.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.

Holmbeck, G. N., Li, S. T., Schurman, J. V., Friedman, D., & Coakley, R. M. (2002).

Collecting and managing multisource and multimethod data in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(1), 5-18.

Inesi, M. E., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). How power corrupts relationships:

Cynical attributions for others' generous acts. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 48(4), 795-803.

Jack, E. P., & Raturi, A. S. (2006). Lessons learned from methodological triangulation in management research. Management Research News.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.

Psychological Review, 110(2), 265.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569-598.

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.

Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32(6), 991-1022.

Lount, R. B., Jr., & Petitt, N. C. (2012). The social context of trust: The role of status.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 15–23.

Lyman, A. (2003). Building trust in the workplace. Strategic HR Review, 3(1), 24-27.

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.

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(1), 75.

Mooijman, M., Van Dijk, W. W., Van Dijk, E., & Ellemers, N. (2019). Leader power, power staility, and interpersonal trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 1-10.

Morris, L. (1995). Creating and maintaining trust. Training & Development, 49(12), 52–54.

Natte, J. & Social, M. A. (2015). Power, distrust and the moderating role of shared identity

(Master’s Thesis).

Perryer, C., Scott-Ladd, B., & Leighton, C. (2012). Gamification: implications for workplace intrinsic motivation in the 21st century. Asian Forum on Business Education Journal (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 371-381).

Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource- dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. Prejudice, Politics, and the American Dilemma, 173-211.

Smith, P. K., Wigboldus, D. H., & Dijksterhuis, A. P. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one’s sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 378-385.

Sousa-Lima, M., Michel, J. W., & Caetano, A. (2013). Clarifying the importance of trust in organizations as a component of effective work relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(2), 418-427.

Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279-282.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53.

Thibaut, J. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.

Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004).

Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856.

Weber, M. (1946). Science as a vocation. Science and the Quest for Reality (pp. 382-394).

Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Zand, D. E., & Dale, E. (1997). The leadership triad: Knowledge, trust, and power. Oxford University Press on Demand.