Retaining The Imbalance Of Power Does Not Corrupt:
A Quantitative Report On When Power Threat Interacts With Power And Supervisor Undermining Leadership.
University of Groningen
Research Paper for Pre-MSc HRM
EBS013A10
Date (12, 06, 2020)
Marcel van der Linde S4188691
p.m.van.der.linde@student.rug.nl
Research Paper for Pre-MSc HRM
Abstract
Having a position of power has many benefits but when the position of power is threatened, it may lead to social undermining. Considering the adverse outcomes of social undermining in business and society, it is important to understand when power threat interacts with power and leads to more social undermining. The present study examines the moderating role of power threat on the relationship between power and social undermining in the workplace. Existing literature and experimental studies suggest that power threat interacts with power to influence social undermining in the workplace. However, these studies were mostly conducted in a laboratory setting in which power was manipulated. The present study aims to replicate these findings in an organizational field setting using data collected from supervisor-subordinate dyads from various Dutch institutions and organizations. I found only negative relationships between various measures of power and social undermining, challenging existing literature and experimental studies. The present study finds different results than expected regarding the interaction effect. My findings suggest that practitioners should focus on interventions that keep power threat perceptions low. Future research possibilities and managerial implications are also discussed.
Keywords:
Introduction
“The measure of a man is what he does with his power” – Plato.
Tutankhamun, Alexander the Great, Imperator Nero, Charlemagne and Abraham Lincoln have one thing in common: power. Having power has many benefits (e.g. Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Hoogervorst, De Cremer, van Dijke, & Mayer, 2012). However, people sometimes abuse that power to undermine their subordinates to retain the benefits that come with power. We can find various examples of this in classical, medieval, and modern history.
In modern history, we can find such behaviours the Enron case. The CEO of the organisation, Kenneth Lay, used his power to undermine subordinates when he perceived his power was threatened. He made sure he had the power to carefully select his board members and to have ultimate decision-making power. The CEO and managers showed behaviours targeted at eliminating corporate rivals by undermining them. The result was detrimental. Subordinates were tactically removed from the organization and constantly being undermined by their supervisors when they perceived a threat to power. (Hosseini & Mahesh, 2016)
To date, many studies examined the relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership and its consequences (i.e. Ashfort, 1997; Blau & Andersson, 2005; Duffy et al., 2002; Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007; Tepper, 2000) but only a few studies examined when power threat interacts with power and leads to more supervisor undermining leadership (i.e. Georgesen & Harris, 2006; Mead & Maner, 2012). Both of these studies concluded that power threat interacts with power, such that those who experienced more power threat, were more likely to undermine their subordinates. However, both of these studies were limited to controlled laboratory studies with student participants and, therefore, lacked generalizability to real-workplace situations.
The present paper gives more insights into when power threat interacts with power and supervisor undermining leadership in an organisational field setting by extending on the experimental study by Georgesen and Harris (2006) and Mead and Maner (2012), and providing more insights in the role of power in organizations (Feenstra, Jordan, Walter, Yan and Stoker, 2017) in relation to supervisor undermining leadership (Duffy et al., 2002). Particularly, I first aim to show the positive relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership. I expect that power has a positive relationship with supervisor undermining leadership. The second aim is to show when this occurs. Particularly, I aim to show when power threat interacts with power and supervisor undermining leadership. In line with the laboratory studies (Georgesen & Harris, 2006; Mead & Maner, 2012), I expect that 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, and power is not associated with supervisor undermining leadership when power threat is low.
For practitioners, it is important to understand when supervisor undermining
organisational restructuring, mergers and take-overs by communicating change that may increase uncertainty (Fugate, Kinicki, & Prussia, 2008) and preventing ambitious leaders from getting into high power positions in the first place (Maner & Mead, 2010). In this way,
supervisor undermining leadership and its negative consequences can be avoided (Fugate et al. 2008; Maner & Mead, 2010; Mooijman, Van Dijk, Van Dijk, & Ellemers, 2015).
In the present research, I use survey data collected from supervisor-subordinate dyads of various institutions and organisations in the Netherlands to examine the moderating role of power threat on the relationship between power and undermining behaviour of the
powerholder.
Figure 1: Predicted two-way interaction of power and power threat: leaders who are higher
in power threat show more supervisor undermining leadership in positions of high power, when power threat is low or not present at all it predicts no supervisor undermining leadership.
Theory and Hypotheses Definitions
Power. There are many definitions of power and approaches into finding a definition
of power (Lammers, Stoker, & Stapel, 2010; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Power has been defined as a social relationship between two individuals (Mooijman et al., 2015) aimed at obtaining specific outcomes (Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015), as the capacity to change other’s states by withholding resources and punishing individuals (Keltner et al., 2003), and as a structural relationship that is obtained through a position in a formal hierarchy (Lammers et al., 2010). Power also has been approached as a psychological property of the individual (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006) which is referred to as the ‘sense of power’. This ‘sense of power’ changes across contexts and relationships and can be best described as an internal experience of power. In this paper, I will use the definition of hierarchical power given by Lammers et al. (2010), stating that power is based on a structural relationship between two persons such as a relationship in a professional structure. For the sake of readability, I will refer to this type of power just as power in the following sections.
Power threat. A position of power is often stable (Morrison, Fast, & Ybarra, 2009)
and people in a position of power prefer to keep it that way (Williams, 2014). However, these positions of power are not set in stone. The definition of power threat is also not set in stone because it is context-dependent. Organizational change, for example, may destabilize these positions and this can be perceived as threatening to the people who are in a position of power (Fugate et al. 2008). People in a position of power may also perceive high-performing
(Morrison et al., 2009; Kouchaki & Desai, 2015; Fugate et al., 2008, 2010; Chandler, Kennedy & Sandhu, 2007).
Supervisor undermining leadership. Aggression at the workplace is a common field
of research in organizational behaviour and there are various constructs and definitions to explain aggression at the workplace (Hershcovis, 2011). Examples of this are abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), destructive leadership (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007), bullying (Yamada, 2008), and social undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). Social undermining is “behaviour intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favourable reputation” (Duffy et al., 2002: 332). Social undermining excludes hinder by the means of physical contact and excludes the organization as a target of undermining, such as with destructive leadership (Einarsen et al., 2007). It differs from abusive supervision and bullying in the intent of the behaviour: Abusive supervision has the intent to end the relationship between the leader and the target (Tepper, 2000); Bullying is a behaviour with the intent to harm the target (Yamada, 2008). Undermining has the intent to deliberately hinder the target, not terminate the
relationship or harm the target (Duffy et al. 2002). Social undermining in this paper is limited to work-related undermining behaviours that involve work-related relations. I will use the definition of social undermining by Duffy et al. (2002) to describe supervisor undermining leadership in the context of this research. I will define supervisor undermining leadership as behaviours of a supervisor in a leadership position that subordinates perceive to be
intentionally hindering “their ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favourable reputation” (Duffy et al., 2002: 332).
The Relationship between Power and Supervisor Undermining Leadership
Sivanathan, 2008). Having power gives a person increased access to rewards and resources, and reduces the interference from others when they pursuit rewards and resources (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006). Power also makes the high-power party less dependent on the low-power party (Magee & Galinsky 2008). From having power, leaders get a sense of belongingness (Hoogervorst, De Cremer, van Dijke, & Mayer, 2012) and status, of which the latter has been shown to be causally related and mutually reinforcing with power (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Keltner et al. (2003) pointed out that power gives a leader the ability to modify another actor’s state by e.g. withholding resources and the ability to control, reward, and punish individuals. From the Approach/Inhibition Theory of power, having high power triggers the behavioural approach system, while having low power triggers the behavioural inhibition system. The former is related to positive emotions and rewards, while the latter is related to negative emotions and threats or punishment (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006). People in low power positions are also more vulnerable to becoming the target of supervisor undermining leadership by people in higher power positions (Hodson, Roscigno and Lopez, 2006).
With all these benefits, it seems not illogical that people fear losing the benefits of power. A supervisor may experience negative emotions when the power balance is
destabilized, such as stress (Fugate et al., 2008) and anxiety (Kouchaki & Desai, 2015). To cope with the changing balance (Scheck & Kinicki, 2000), supervisors may try to retain their power position and prefer a stable position (Williams, 2014).
to retain power positions and the benefits that come with their managerial position (Ashforth, 1997) and will evaluate their subordinates more negatively than themselves (Georgesen & Harris (1998). Leaders who successfully influence the behaviours of their subordinates also socially distanced themselves more from their subordinates outside of work (Kipnis, 1972; Kipnis, Castell, Gergen, & Mauch, 1976), while a study by Mead and Maner (2012) suggests that leaders will try to keep their in-group threats closer to retain their power over others in a work-related context and rule with “an iron fist” (Mead and Maner, 2012: 589). Leaders may even try to prevent losing their power at all cost (Williams, 2014), such as assigning roles of little consequence to skilled group members and excluding skilled group members, even if that meant that group goals were imperilled (Maner & Mead, 2010). Leaders may even go as far as using their power to directly threaten their inferiors (Rousseau & Garcia-Retamero, 2007). This suggests that power is associated with increased supervisor undermining leadership behaviours.
I argue that having power increases supervisor undermining leadership because supervisors will do everything within their power to retain their power and the benefits that come with power (Williams, 2014), even at the cost of their subordinates (Mead and Maner, 2012) or the group (Maner & Mead, 2010). Supervisors that fear to lose their power, engage in self-serving behaviours at the expense of other’s interests (Wisse, Rus, Keller, & Sleebos, 2019). Therefore, I expect to find a positive effect of power on supervisor undermining leadership. The first aim of the present research to find evidence of this positive relationship in an organizational field setting. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: Power is associated with increased supervisors undermining leadership The Moderating Role of Power Threat
perceive power threat from organisational change that alters power positions in the organization. Supervisors may also experience power threat from their subordinates. The threat to power can be described as the fear of losing power, which triggers negative emotions such as anxiety (Kochaki & Desai, 2015). However, power threat is not limited to the fear of losing power. Power threat may also express itself in the fear of losing status, pay, incentives, job security, and other benefits that come with power (Fugate et. Al, 2008). When power is unstable, or threatened, supervisors want to find ways to cope with the possibility of losing of power and its benefits. The fear of losing power and its benefits is associated with behaviours that are not desirable and are aimed towards self-protection (Kochaki & Desai, 2015).
Galinsky et al. (2015) argued that anxious individuals are more likely to deploy coping strategies that are dysfunctional, such as angry behaviour and disrupted behaviour. Supervisors will try to protect their power over others by taking actions that will keep the threats under their control, and show their dominance over others (Mead & Maner, 2012). Similarly, Williams (2014) showed that when leaders perceive their power to be threatened by in-group competitors, they will try to downplay the threat posed by those in-group
individuals. Supervisors become more vigilant as a result and subordinates generally experience more supervisor undermining leadership when supervisors are in a mode of vigilance (Duffy et al. 2002). Also, power and stability play a role for psychological stress, Jordan, Sivanathan, and Galinsky (2011) found that unstable power produced more stress. Being in a state of stress is undesirable and may lead to more supervisor undermining
of losing power and the benefits that come with power. From that, it follows that supervisors will try to cope with those emotions, and this expresses itself in supervisor undermining leadership behaviours. Therefore, I argue that power threat moderates the relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership, such that there is a positive
relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership when power threat is high, and that there is no relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership when power threat is low. I expect this because some laboratory studies have shown that power threat moderates this relationship (Georgesen & Harris, 2006; Mead & Maner, 2012; Williams, 2014). Therefore, I hypothesize:
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, and power is not associated with supervisor undermining leadership when power threat is low.
Method Participants and Procedures
Participants for the present research were recruited by 25 students who were each expected to contact ten supervisor-subordinate dyads. These participants then received a link to an online questionnaire containing measures relevant to the research project Predictors and
Outcomes of Leadership, including power and supervisor undermining leadership. Due to the
international nature of the project, the possibility to complete the questionnaire in English was an option.
supervisors did not have subordinates. This led to a total of 140 complete supervisor-subordinate dyads to be included in the sample.
The data showed a mean age of 42.5 (SD = 12.70) for supervisors and a mean age of 34.88 (SD = 14.22) for subordinates. The majority of subordinates consisted out of females (59%) and the majority of supervisors consisted out of males (58.3%). Combined, the
distribution of gender amongst all respondents was 49.6% male and 50.4% female. A majority of supervisors (80.6%) had a permanent employment contract. 70.3% Of subordinates
indicated to have a permanent employment contract. Supervisors often indicated to work 36 hours or more a week (70.5%), and 19.3% indicated to work 24-36 hours a week. Amongst subordinates, 37.7% indicated to work 36 hours or more a week, 26.1% indicated to work between 24-36 hours, 20.3% indicated to work 12-24 hours, and 15.9% indicated to work 0-12 hours a week. The majority of respondents worked in the health sector (19.4%), retail sector (18.7%) and business sector (14.3%). On average, the participants worked for about eight years for their current employer (M = 8.35, SD = 6.25). Supervisors on average had been working in their position for six years (M = 6.08, SD = 3.00). Subordinates had been working for their current supervisors for an average of 7.5 years (M = 7.54, SD = 4.00). The present study was conducted in the Netherlands. Therefore, it is no surprise that 82.9% of respondents indicated to be of Dutch nationality. The remainder of respondents indicated to be of another nationality, including 7.9% of Chinese nationality.
Measures
Power. In the present research, I used hierarchical power as indicated by Lammers and
that, respondents were asked to answer the question “Do you supervisor / direct other employees”. Respondents could choose between six options: “No”, “Yes, 1-5 employees”, “Yes, 6-10 employees”, “Yes, 11-15 employees”, “Yes, 16-20 employees”, and “Yes, more than 20 employees”. I will refer to this variable as span of control in the analysis. Hierarchical power was also measured by asking respondents to answer the question “What is your current management position”. Four options were provided: “no management”, “low management”, “middle management”, and “top management”. I will refer to this variable as management
position in the analysis.
Power threat. To measure power threat, respondents were asked to indicate how
threatened – a possibility that it will get worse in the future – supervisors felt (1 = ‘not at all threatened’ to 5 = ‘threatened to a great extent’). Supervisors were asked to indicate this perceived threat about their position, control, authority, power, and influence on a five-point Likert scale (Morrison et al., 2009; Kouchaki & Desai, 2015; Fugate et al., 2008, 2010; Chandler et al. 2007). The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .94.
Supervisor undermining leadership. I used the 13 items of Duffy et al. (2002) to
measure supervisor undermining leadership. Respondents, with a subordinate position in the dyad, were asked to answer how often they experienced certain intentional negative
behaviours from their supervisors. Respondents were asked questions like “How often has your supervisor intentionally hurt your feelings?”, and “How often has your supervisor intentionally spread rumours about you?”. They answered this question by indicating a frequency on a Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘Never’, to (5) ‘Very often’. A correlation analysis showed that all items for measuring supervisor undermining leadership significantly correlate with each other. Reliability analysis of the 13 items measuring supervisor
Control variables. Drawing on review of relevant literature, I considered age, gender
and tenure as possible control variables of the supervisor. Age, gender and tenure may be related to antisocial behaviour (e.g. Duffy et al., 2006; Tepper, 2000), such as bullying (e.g. Hershovis, 2011; Yamada, 2008). I also considered the subordinate’s age, gender and tenure as control variables to ensure that the subordinate’s age, gender and tenure could be excluded later in the analysis if these variables turned out to be not significant and prevent that these control variables may have unexpectedly impacted the main results.
Results Assumptions
To test my hypotheses in the main analysis, I will conduct regression analysis. This requires supervisor undermining leadership to be normally distributed. In the present research, I tested the distribution of supervisor undermining leadership using the Shapiro-Wilk test to test for normality. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed that it is not normally distributed, W(139) = .73, p = .00. Statistically, this can be also observed in the skewness (S = 2.08, SE = .21) and the kurtosis (K = 4.58, SE = .41), also see Figure 2. This means that the distribution is both substantially positively skewed and too peaked. Meaning that supervisor undermining leadership differs significantly from normality. The substantial difference from normality of supervisor undermining leadership can be explained by the undesirability of undermining (Duffy et al., 2002). It may also be that negative events, such as undermining by the
supervisor, are perceived to be less negative in hindsight, or may simply be forgotten by the target of undermining (Li, 2013). It is not uncommon that supervisor undermining leadership is positively skewed. Hoobler and Brass (2006) found that many studies into abusive
Figure 2: Normal distribution for supervisor undermining leadership.
Outliers are those respondents who scored three or more SD’s above or below the mean (M = 1.32, SD = .45). Using a boxplot, I found one data point that can be considered an extreme outlier. This outlier had significant influence on the main analysis, meaning that conclusions differed when the outlier was included or excluded from the analysis. For this reason, I continued my analysis without outliers, as this led to significantly different results.
Preliminary analysis
In table 1 it becomes clear hierarchy level had a negative correlation with supervisor undermining leadership and was significant (r = -.20, p = .02). Span of control also showed a negative correlation but it was not significant (r = -.01, p = .93). In line with the other
measures of power, management position also showed a negative correlation with supervisor undermining leadership but it was only marginally significant (r = -.14, p = .10). These results show no support for Hypothesis 1, in which a positive relationship between power and
It is worth noting that power threat and supervisor undermining leadership are
significantly positively correlated (r = .24, p = .005). Since not a single control variable shows a significant relationship with supervisor undermining, they are left out of the main analysis as covariates.
Main analysis
In this section, I will present my findings for the main analysis. This section is divided into three parts, first analysing hierarchy level, then span of control, followed by management position. Table 2, 3, and 4 show the results of these analyses respectively. I used moderated regression analysis using Process of Hayes (Hayes, Glynn, & Huge, 2012) to test my
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Age (Supervisor) 2.72 1.26 2. Gender (Supervisor) 1.42 0.50 -.07 3. Tenure (Supervisor) 11.75 10.42 .54** .16 4. Age (Subordinate) 2.06 1.32 .55** -.03 .24** 5. Gender (Subordinate) 1.59 0.49 .03 .34** .17* -.05 6. Tenure (Subordinate) 4.90 7.32 .30** -.03 .31** .25** -.12 7. Hierarchy level 73.40 22.54 .23** -.14 .01 .01 -.01 .13 8. Span of control 4.03 1.73 .07 -.10 .11 .10 ,05 -.04 .16 9. Management position 2.75 0.96 .35** -.19* .00 .13 -.03 .04 .51** .20* 10 Power threat 1.99 0.89 -.21* .08 .00 -.13 .18* -.13 -.22* .04 -.20*
11 Supervisor undermining leadership 1.31 0.41 -.14 .05 -.02 -.11 .10 -.01 -.20* -.01 -.14+ .24**
Notes. N ranges from 135 to 139; +p < .10, *p < .05; **p < .01; For gender, male = 1, female = 2; For hierarchy level, bottom = 0, top = 100; For span of control, 1 = no employees, 2 = 1-5 employees, 3 = 6-10 employees, 4 = 11-15 employees, 5 = 16-20 employees, 6 = more than 20 employees; For management position, 1 = no management, 2 = lower
Hierarchy level. To test both of my hypotheses, I used a regression analysis as
described above. In preparation of the analysis, I standardized my independent variables, hierarchy level and power threat. The moderator in the analysis is power threat. Table 2 shows that there is no support for Hypothesis 1. The results show a weak negative relationship between hierarchy level and supervisor undermining leadership that is not significant (β = -.05, t = -1.45, p = .15). Table 2 reveals that hierarchy level is positively and statistically significantly associated with power threat (β = .09, t = 2.54, p = .01). The analysis reveals that there is a significant interaction effect between hierarchy level and power threat (β = .08, t = 2.34, p = .02).
Table 2. Regression Result for Two-way Interaction for Hierarchy Level Predicting
Supervisor Undermining Leadership
Variables β (SE) t p
Hierarchy level -.05 (.03) -1.45 .15
Power threat .09 (.04) 2.54 .01
Hierarchy level × Power threat .08 (.04) 2.34 .02
Notes: N = 136
Figure 3: Graphical representation of moderating effect.
Span of control. The same regression analysis was performed to test the hypotheses
with regards to power from span of control (see table 3). The moderator is the same, but the independent variable in this analysis is span of control. Also this variable was standardized before doing the regression analysis. The analysis revealed a negative relationship between span of control and supervisor undermining leadership which was not significant (β = -.01, t = -.25, p = .80). Therefore, the analysis gives no support for Hypothesis 1. The relationship between supervisor undermining leadership and power threat showed a significant positive relationship (β = .10, t = 2.95, p < .01). The analysis revealed an interaction effect between span of control and power threat but it was not significant (β = .05, t = 1.61, p = .11). Since the interaction effect was not significant, I conclude that there is no support for Hypothesis 2 with regards to span of control as a measure for power.
Table 3. Regression Result for Two-way Interaction for Span of Control Predicting
Supervisor Undermining Leadership
Variables β (SE) t p 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Low Hierarchy Level High Hierarchy Level
S upe rvisor Unde rmini ng L ea de rship
Span of control -01 (.03) -.25 .80
Power threat .10 (.03) 2.95 .00+
Span of control × Power threat .05 (.03) 1.61 .11
Notes: N = 137; +p < .01.
Management position. In this analysis, I used the same regression analysis as before
and also standardized the independent variables (see table 4). The variable used to measure power in this analysis is management position. The analysis revealed that there is a negative relationship between management position and supervisor undermining leadership but it is not significant (β = -.03, t = -.89, p = .38). Therefore, it does not provide support for Hypothesis 1. However, the analysis reveals a positive relationship between power threat and supervisor undermining that is significant (β = .10, t = 2.82, p = .01). The analysis revealed a significant and positive interaction effect between management position and power threat (β = .08, t = 2.28, p = .02).
Table 4. Regression Result for Two-way Interaction for Management Position Predicting
Supervisor Undermining Leadership
Variables β (SE) t p
Management position -03 (.03) -.89 .38
Power threat .10 (.03) 2.82 .01
Management position × Power threat .08 (.03) 2.28 .02
Notes: N = 137
Therefore, the conclusion is that when the management position is taken as the power measure, power threat interacts with management position. Simple slope analysis (see figure 4) revealed that management position was not associated with supervisor undermining when power threat was high (+1SD; β = -0.04, t = .64, p = .52) but it was negatively associated with supervisor
partially in line with Hypothesis 2. The interaction model for management position explained 10% of the supervisor undermining leadership, r(137) = .10, p < .01.
Figure 4: Graphical representation of moderating effect.
Discussion
The findings from my study suggest that power is negatively associated with
supervisor undermining leadership. This was contrary to my expectation and contrary to what studies suggested. The findings from my study also suggest that power and power threat interact to influence supervisor undermining leadership. The results were only partially in line with my expectation, it turned out that power threat moderates the relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership, such that there is no relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership when power threat is high, and there is a negative
relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership when power threat is low.
Theoretical Implications
My research examined the relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership, and when power threat interacts with power to influence supervisor undermining
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Low Management Position High Management Position
S upe rvisor Unde rmini ng L ea de rship
leadership. My findings make two contributions to existing literature on power, power threat, and supervisor undermining leadership. First, using several measures of power, I
demonstrated that power is negatively associated with supervisor undermining leadership. This contradicts most of the findings in relevant research, which suggested a positive relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership (e.g. Ashforth, 1997; Duffy et al, 2002; Tepper, 2000). Hence, this study sheds a different light on the relationship between power and supervisor undermining leadership. Second, my findings demonstrate that power interacts with power threat to influence supervisor undermining but not as expected. My findings showed a different pattern than the laboratory studies by Georgesen and Harris (2006), and Mead and Maner (2012) and my expectations. I will discuss in the limitations and future research section how these differences in findings may be explained and how future research may be directed at explaining this phenomenon.
Partial Implications
strong desire for authority or domination, as they are more likely to abuse their power and desire it the most (Maner & Mead, 2010). Rather, organizations should focus on hiring leaders who value skill and/or knowledge over ambition.
Limitations and Future Research
The present research is not without limitations. In particular, the study was only a snapshot in one time and in one place. The data is mostly limited to Dutch supervisors and their subordinates and these participants were recruited using a convenience sample method, meaning that participants were limited to the students’ own private network. This may have led to an underrepresentation of subgroups and cultural differences. According to Geert Hofstede’s analysis of cultures (1980), the Dutch have a low score on power distance. Which could influence the threat perception supervisors have, and/or influence the amount of
supervisor undermining leadership perceived by subordinates. Studies have shown that high power distance in organizations leads to more abusive supervision, such as supervisor
undermining leadership (e.g. Huiwen, Lance, & Douglas, 2012; Khatri & Naresh, 2009). For future studies, it may be interesting to examine the influence of power distance across various cultures on power threat, power, and supervisor undermining leadership.
Since the data was collected using a convenience sample method, it may have
occurred that supervisors who actively undermine their subordinates for the sake of retaining power were excluded from the sample by them either refusing to participate because they had suspicions about the research subject before or during the survey, resulting in missing data and rendering their input unusable for analysis. This suspicion about the subject may also have led to social desirability bias, in which participants answer the questions in a way they believe is most accepted and liked (Dodou & de Winter, 2014).
study is limited in generalizability. This limitation may find its source in the limitation of time. Participants for the research were recruited over a period of three weeks. Participants had two weeks to respond to the survey. This time constraint was part of the fact that the study was limited by the time available in the curriculum of the pre-master study and the research process was bounded to strict deadlines. The fact that this study is limited to a small sample size and, therefore, lacks generalizability, requires expanded research on the topic of power, power threat, and supervisor undermining leadership.
My findings showed that there is a negative relationship between power an supervisor undermining leadership. This is contrary to most of the literature on power and social
undermining (e.g. Ashforth, 1997; Duffy et al, 2002; Tepper, 2000). This may indicate that another influence may have mediated the amount of supervisor undermining leadership in the sample. Hoogervorst et al. (2012) found that people in power are willing to self-sacrifice to retain the benefits of power. It could be the case that the powerholders in this sample were more tended to self-sacrifice to retain power than to undermine subordinates. It may be worth investigating if the willingness of powerholders to self-sacrifice mediates or moderates the degree of undermining directed towards subordinates.
Future studies could examine the direction of supervisor undermining leadership. In the present study, I assumed a unidirectional form of supervisor undermining leadership. Amongst primate populations, acts of aggression are unidirectional down the hierarchy when a rigid hierarchy is present (Thierry, Iwaniuk, & Pellis, 2001). More often, primates show acts of aggression in a bidirectional way. Humans engage in multidirectional aggression in the form of downward bullying (e.g. Tepper, 2000), upward bullying (e.g. Wallace, 2009) and horizontal bullying (e.g. Ganstra, 2015). Combining this evidence with the present findings, one might expect that direction of social undermining behaviours to vary amongst
Power threat perceptions may also be influenced by the control that comes with power. Mead and Maner (2012) demonstrated that people with power who experience power threat are more likely to close the proximity with in-group competitors to gain more control over them and reduce the threat. As with status (Megee, J.C., & Galinsky), this may be self-reinforcing and reinforced by the trend of flattening hierarchies (Rayan & Wulf, 2006). As one gains power, one gains more control over resources (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006) and relationships (Galinsky et al., 2008), and flat hierarchies reduce the distance between supervisors and subordinates (Rayan & Wulf, 2006). One might expect that this self-reinforcing pattern may lower the perception of threat by high power individuals as they climb in the social hierarchy, i.e. gain power.
Conclusion
Given the negative outcomes of supervisor undermining leadership, and literature suggesting that power is related to supervisor undermining leadership, and there is an
interaction between power and power threat to influence supervisor undermining leadership, I aimed to find out if this direct relationship and if this interaction could be found in the
References
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A.D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 36, 511-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.324
Ashforth, B.E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(2), 126-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700701
Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 595–614.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X26822
Chandler, M., Kennedy, P., & Sandhu, N. (2007). The association between threat appraisals and psychological adjustment in partners of people with spinal cord injuries.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(4), 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.52.4.470
Dodou, D., & de Winter, J. C. F. (2014). Social desirability is the same in offline, online and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 487–495.
https://doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.005
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.
Academic of Management Journal, 45(2), 331-351. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069350
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C., Shaw, J.D., Johnson, J.L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 101(1), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.005
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207-2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002
social dominance orientation with work stress. Applied Psychology, 66, 653-673. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12104
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J., & Prussia, G.E. (2008). Employee coping with organizational change: An examination of alternative theoretical perspectives and models. Personnel
Psychology, 61, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00104.x
Granstra, K. (2015). Nurse against nurse: Horizontal bullying in the nursing profession.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 60(4), 249-257.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00115514-201507000-00006
Galinsky, A., Jordan. J., & Sivanathan, N. (2008). Harnessing power to capture leadership. In Ciulla, J.B., Forsyth, D.R., & Genovese, M.A. (Eds.), Leadership at the Crossroads. New York: Praeger Press.
Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In M. Mikulincer, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA
Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 421-460. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/14344-016 Georgesen, J. C., & Harris, M. J. (1998). Why’s my boss always holding me down? A
meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Personality & Social Psychology
Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 2(3), 184.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_3
Georgesen, J.C., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.352
Communication Methods and Measures, 6(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.651415
Hershcovis, M.S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32, 499-519. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.689
Holmes, T.H. (2004) Ten categories of statistical errors: a guide for research in endocrinology and metabolism. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, 286(4) 286, 495–501.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00484.2003
Hodson, R., Roscigno, V.J., & Lopez, S.H. (2006). Chaos and the abuse of power: Workplace bullying in organizational and interactional context. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 382-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888406292885
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work- related
Values. Beverly Hills: CA: Sage Publications.
Hoogervorst, N., De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Mayer, D.M. (2012). When do leaders sacrifice? The effects of sense of power and belongingness on leader self-sacrifice. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23, 883-896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.006
Hoobler, J.M., & Brass, D.J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125-1133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125
Hosseini, S.B., & Mahesh R. (2016). The lesson from Enron case – Moral and managerial responsibilities. International Journal of Current Research, 8(8), 37451-37460. Jordan, J., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A.D. (2011). Something to lose and nothing to gain:
the role of stress in the interactive effect of power and stability on risk taking.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 530-558.
Kahn, A.K., Moss, S., Quratulain, S., & Hameed, I. (2016). When and how subordinate performance leads to abusive supervision: A social dominance perspective. Journal of
Management, 44(7), 2801-2826. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206316653930
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Khatri, Naresh. (2009). Consequences of power distance orientation in organisations. Vision:
The Journal of Business Perspective, 13, 1-9. .
https://doi.org/10.1177/097226290901300101
Kipnis, D. (1972). Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033390
Kipnis, D., Castell, P.J., Gergen, M., & Mauch, D. (1976). Metamorphic effects of power.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 127-135.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.2.127
Kouchaki, M., & Desai, S.D. (2015). Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: How anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit unethical acts. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(2), 360-375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037796
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, 543-551. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.702
Li, K.K. (2013). Asymmetric memory recall of positive and negative events in social interactions. Experimental Economics, 16, 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-012-9325-9
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied
Mead, N.L., & Maner, J.K. (2012). On keeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek Proximity to Ingroup Power Threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102(3), 576-591. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025755
Maner, J.K., & Mead, N.L. (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(3), 482-497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018559
Megee, J.C., & Galinsky, A.D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211628
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), 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000021
Morrison, K.R., Fast, N.J., & Ybarra, O. (2009). Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 204-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.004
Rajan, R.G., & Wulf, J. (2006). The flattening firm: Evidence from panel data on the changing nature of corporate hierarchies. The Review of Economics and Statistics,
88(4), 759-773. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4.759
Rousseau, D.L., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2007). Identity, power, and threat perception: A cross-national experimental study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(5), 744-771. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022002707304813
counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of personality. Journal of
Personnel Psychology, 12(4), 196-200. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000097
Tepper, B. (2000). Consequences of Abusive Supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 178-190. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1556375
Thierry, B. (2007). Unity in diversity: Lessons from macaque societies. Evol Anthropol, 16, 224-238. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.20147
Thierry, B., Iwaniuk, A.N., & Pellis, S.M. (2001). The influence of phylogeny on the social behaviour of macaques (Primates: Cercopithecidae, genus Macaca). Ethology, 106, 713-728. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2000.00583.x
Wallace, B. (2009). Bullying the boss: Upwards bullying as a response to destructive supervisory leadership in the workplace. Unpublished master of science dissertation, University of Canterbury, United Kingdom.
Williams, M. J. (2014). Serving the self from the seat of power: Goals and threats predict leaders’ self-interested behavior. Journal of Management, 40, 1365–1395.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525203
Wisse, B., Rus, D., Keller, A.C., & Sleebos, E. (2019). Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it: The combined effects of leader fear of losing power and competitive climate on leader self-serving behaviour. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 742-755.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1635584
Yamada, D. (2008). Workplace bullying and ethical leadership. The Journal of Values-Based
