Lecture 3: Power and influence: Empowering and abusive leadership

Question 1

Empowering leadership

Answer 1

Defined as leader behaviour intended to encourage greater employee self-direction. It is a single higher order construct with multiple dimensions like promoting autonomy, participation, power and control. Can be beneficial but also can be used to justify unethical means. Linked to increased job-induced tension

Question 2

What does this research aim to do?

Answer 2

Can empowering leadership have unintended consequences in terms of unethical behaviour and when are these most likely to occur?

Question 3

Bandura’s social cognitive theory of morality

Answer 3

People’s environment can affect whether they engage in unethical behaviour through moral disengagement (through moral self-regulation or circumstances). More likely to resist behaving unethically when moral self-regulation is boosted. People assess self-evaluative reactions (self-satisfaction) and social effects (reactions of others) before engaging in unethical behaviour

Question 4

What is the proposed theoretical model?

Answer 4

1. empowering leadership results in unethical pro-org behaviour through moral disengagement (mediator)
2. focus on hindrance stressor as moderators-> work related demands or circumstances that can interfere with an individual’s work achievement (impedes moral self-regulation)
3. empowering leadership should positively affect UPB via its effect
   on moral disengagement, and it should do so only when situational
   factors that adversely affect moral self-regulation are higher.

Question 5

unethical pro-org behaviour

Answer 5

is actions that promote effective functioning of the organization and violate core societal values

Question 6

How is psychological empowerment motivating?

Answer 6

As it allows employees to satisfy autonomy and competence needs. It also shared power to encourage self-direction to increase performance and satisfaction

Question 7

Why are hindrance stressors a moderator?

Answer 7

1. stressors could affect moral self-regulation in response to other stimuli as they cause strains (depletion), psych withdrawal (caring less about others) and cognitive reappraisals (skewed cost-benefit ratio of job)
2. roadblocks to goals that employees cannot circumvent as it can lead to feelings of powerlessness
3. hindrance stressors can reverse empowering leadership’s effects on moral disengagement
4. they can cause employees to feel depleted

Question 8

Challenge stressors

Answer 8

work-related demands or circumstances that, although potentially stressful, have associated potential gains for individuals

Question 9

What are the hypotheses?

Answer 9

1. hindrance stressors moderate the relationship between empowering leadership and moral disengagement, such that the relationship is positive when hindrance stressors
   are higher, and negative when hindrance stressors are lower
2. Empowering leadership indirectly affects UPB through moral disengagement, such that this indirect effect is positive when hindrance stressors are higher, and negative when hindrance stressors are lower

Question 10

What is the method of study 1?

Answer 10

Working adults were recruited from various industries and jobs. Empowering leadership, hindrance stressors, moral disengagement and UPB were all measured using questionnaires and data was collected online. Controls: moral identity, sincerity and psych empowerment.

Question 11

What did study 1 find?

Answer 11

interaction btw empowering leadership and hindrance stressors were significant-> hypothesis 1 is supported.
Moral disengagement positively predicted UPB and the mediation effect was significant-> hypothesis 2 supported
Empowering * challenge stressors did not predict moral disengagement
Empowering leadership * hindrance did not significantly predict UPB
Replacing moral disengagement with psychological empowerment or role conflict as mediators revealed no significant moderated mediation, though role conflict was significantly related to UPB.

Question 12

What was the study 2 method?

Answer 12

Participants had to imagine they were a senior manager in R & D of a company. Participants would complete in a contest to see the app’s performance. Participants were given info on the workplace, with either high or low amounts of hindrance stressors.
Proself benefit was manipulated using incentives, participants were informed the characteristics of the head R and D as either empowering or not. Moral disengagement was measured using a survey and UPB as cheating for the benefit of the org (anagrams were not solvable)

Question 13

What did the results of study 2 find?

Answer 13

Empowering leadership * hindrance stressors significantly predicted moral disengagement.
Moral disengagement positively predicted UPB and the indirect effect of empowering leadership on UPB through disengagement was positive. The results were the same as study 1.

Question 14

What are the implications of this study?

Answer 14

1. empowering leadership contributes to unethical behaviour
2. moral disengagement is the mechanism by which empowering leadership affects UPB
3. the role of hindrance stressors
4. empowering leadership alone is not enough to overcome hindrance stressors
5. identifies antecedents to UPB
6. contextual features like less empowering leadership or reduce effects of hindrance stressors
7. removing factors that lead to feelings of powerlessness like lack of role clarity, bureaucratic climate or high levels of formalization

Question 15

What have previous meta-analyses found on abusive supervision?

Answer 15

1. exposure to abusive supervision is rare, and can only be estimated + should be skeptical of percentages
2. exposure to abusive supervision is associated with dysfunctional outcomes (lower individual and group morale, executive functioning, psychological health and higher counterproductive work behaviours)

Question 16

Abusive supervision

Answer 16

Sub-ordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviour, excluding physical contact

Question 17

Can self-reports be used in abusive supervision research?

Answer 17

Yes, as similar levels of abusive supervision in supervisor self-reports compared to subordinate reports. These studies support the idea that self-reporting by supervisors can be valid and informative, particularly when it suits the research question.

Question 18

What are the factors that can influence the perception of the supervisor as abrasive or abusive?

Answer 18

1. supervisor behaviour: not all behaviours are equally likely to evoke perceptions of abuse. Abuse is more likely when supervisors perform cold and calculating actions that reflect hostile intent about well being
2. subordinate characteristics: not all targets have the same reaction or assessment of supervisors who perform acts from the abusive domain (like hostile attribution style)
3. contextual factors: abuse is more likely when abusive supervision is more normative, exceptional team performance or under conditions of crisis

Question 19

What are the objective consequences of abusive supervision?

Answer 19

Performance: use performance ratings most of the time (soft indicators) which can deviate from actual performance, there are little objective measures used
Withdrawal: abusive supervision positively predicted voluntary turnover, research focusses on more subjective measures like satisfaction, intentions to quit etc
Well-being: linked to perceptions of wellbeing like depression + issues with self-regulation-> should look at insomnia, doctor visits, cortisol levels etc

Question 20

How is abusive leadership tested in research?

Answer 20

Most studies on abusive supervision rely on field surveys, often using Tepper’s scale completed by employees. These designs are limited by their correlational nature and reliance on a single source. More robust designs include time lags, multiple sources, or repeated measures, but still lack causal inference. Experimental studies offer causal insight but struggle with ecological validity. Vignette-based studies help explore perceptions but may not reflect real behavior. Lab experiments by Rodgers et al. (2013), Porath & Erez (2007), and Melwani & Barsade (2011) better balance control and realism, showing how leader abuse impacts performance and behavior. While such experiments lack real-world complexity, they offer promising models for future research.

Question 21

What has been found regarding coping with abusive supervision?

Answer 21

1. individual differences can influence how effectively subordinates cope with abusive supervision like being higher in emotional intelligence, higher CSE and less susceptible to emotional contagion
2. coping preferences like hostile acts, problem drinking, withdrawal behaviour and voice
3. comparative effectiveness of coping strategies like experiencing coping benefits when they confront supervisors, upward hostility and ingratiation rather than avoidance-> full range of coping has not been examined yet

Question 22

What are the pathways linking abusive supervision with outcomes like withdrawal, wellbeing, performance?

Answer 22

Studies have found that abusive behaviour influences CWB through decreases in affective commitment, interactional justice, need satisfaction and ego depletion. But these only offer one, so more pathways should be modelled like influencing CWB through increases in anger and avoidance through increases in fear

Question 23

What is the proposed model?

Answer 23

1. abusive leadership
2. results in a performance enhancing pathway: attention, desire to avoid further hostility, desire to prove the supervisor wrong, preparing for new employment
3. results in performance undermining pathway: resource depletion, negative reciprocity, compromised team dynamics, negative role modelling
4. this impacts performance
5. the performance undermining pathway carries a stronger effect

Question 24

What has evidence suggested about the effects of being singled out?

Answer 24

Strengthens the negative effects on the strain reactions, leader-member exchange, affect-based trust, self-esteem, moral courage etc

Question 25

Social learning theory

Answer 25

individuals learn which behaviors and attitudes are considered appropriate in various contexts partly through observing their environment. Role models are an especially important feature of this process, as individuals determine which behaviors to emulate by looking to those who they perceive as being of high status and credible

Question 26

What are the social learning antecedents?

Answer 26

- workplace role models: direct reports perceive authority members as powerful, so being able to spread aggression through trickling down from high to low hierarchical levels - familial role models: parents serve as role models due to providing needs + behavioural tendencies deeply rooted. Angry rumination (focus on negative) can intensify family aggression + supervision link - organizational norms: behaviour is seen as acceptable if norms are aggressive, conscientiousness can buffer the abusive behaviour - country culture: power differences can explain the negative effects of abusive supervision on justice perceptions in anglo cultures than confucian ones

Question 27

Identity threat

Answer 27

Linked to social interactionist theory of aggression-> circumstances prevent others from experiencing desired self or social identity so perceive hostility as a useful reparative strategy. Holding a position of power can increase reactivity as these positions come with the belief that you should be competent

Question 28

What are the types of identity threats?

Answer 28

- subordinate provocation: can be a reaction to subordinate behaviour or individual characteristics such as job performance can interfere with the supervisors' goal accomplishment - displaced aggression: express frustartions against less powerful targets (can lead to negative responses) - supervisor characteristics: strong individual identity (how they are different from others) has been linked to higher average levels of abusive supervision, dark triad indicates self-interest, power and control, authoritarian leadership

Question 29

Victim precipitation theory

Answer 29

Prone to become targets of aggression when they appear vulnerable + unable to defend themselves or when they violate norms. Subordinates usually fit this profile especially those high on neuroticism, low on conscientiousness, low task performance, low core self-evaluation

Question 30

Moral exclusion theory

Answer 30

posits that individuals develop a psychological boundary or “scope of justice” that separates individuals for whom moral rules apply from those whose behavior or characteristics render them undeserving of just treatment. Perceived utility can influence this and deep dissimilarity and low performance

Question 31

Multi-motive model of reactions

Answer 31

Negative interpersonal experiences undermine one's sense of relational value which evokes anger and aggression. This can be violating norms or other CWBs

Question 32

How does self-regulation impairment explain abusive supervision?

Answer 32

Self-regulation is managing thoughts, emotions, impulses to produce consistency, but this requires and consumes self-resources which are depleted at work. Ego-depletion theory is that efforts to self-regulate lead to impairments due to exhaustion + lack of resources-> self-destructive behaviours. Immediate hedonic rewards can outweigh the long-term consequences of such behaviour. More abusive when lower in emotional intelligence and higher in psychological entitlement. Sleep quality, family conflict, low self-control all affect this. High maintenance employees can drain self-regulatory capacities

Question 33

How can these perspectives be integrated?

Answer 33

1. social learning influences identity threat and self-regulation as they influence what is perceived about threatening + attempts to self-regulate 2. self-regulation is directly impacted by identity threat-> if they feel threatened then this depletes more resources 3. self-regulation also impacts identity threat as is resources are drained then more likely to experiences threats 4. all of these factors lead to abusive supervision

Question 34

Political skill

Answer 34

the ability to understand others at work and to use that knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal or organizational objectives. Less likely to use abusive supervision as they have better leadership options (more sincere, trustworthy, develop rich social networks)