Amj 1

Academy of Management Journal
HEAVY IS THE HEAD THAT WEARS THE CROWN: AN ACTOR–

CENTRIC APPROACH TO DAILY PSYCHOLOGICAL POWER,
ABUSIVE LEADER BEHAVIOR, AND PERCEIVED INCIVILITY
Journal: Academy of Management Journal
Manuscript ID AMJ-2015-1061.R3
Manuscript Type: Revision
Field experiment < Quantitative Orientation < Research Methods, Multi-

level (e.g., HLM, WABA, RCM) < Analysis < Research Methods,
Power/politics < Conflict Management < Topic Areas, Stress, strain, and
Keywords:
well-being < Attitudes, Cognitions, and Affect < Organizational Behavior <
Topic Areas, Deviance/counterproductive behaviors < Behavior <
Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas
Recognizing that powerholders operate in dynamic relational and

interdependent work contexts, we posit that the effects of psychological
power on powerholders are more complex than currently depicted in the
literature. Although psychological power prompts behaviors and
perceptions that harm the powerless, these reactions are not consequence-
free for the actor. We integrate the social distance theory of power with
consent-based theories of power to posit that although psychological power
elicits negative behaviors and perceptions, these same reactions hurt
leaders’ subsequent well-being. To explore this possibility, we conducted
an experimental experience sampling study with a sample of managerial
Abstract:
employees whom we surveyed for 10 consecutive workdays. We find that
leaders enact more abusive behavior and perceive more incivility from
others on days when they are exposed to psychological power compared to
days when they are not. Leaders higher in agreeableness are less affected
by psychological power. In turn, abusive behavior and perceived incivility
harm leaders’ subsequent well-being as indicated by their reduced need
fulfillment and ability to relax at home. We discuss theoretical implications
for research on psychological power, abusive leadership, perceived
incivility, and leader well-being, as well as practical implications for
employees and their organizations.
Page 1 of 54 Academy of Management Journal
1
2
3
4 Heavy Is the Head that Wears the Crown:
5 An Actor–centric Approach to Daily Psychological Power,
6
7 Abusive Leader Behavior, and Perceived Incivility
8
9
10
11 Trevor A. Foulk
12 University of Maryland
13 trevor.a.foulk@gmail.com
14
15 Klodiana Lanaj
16
17
University of Florida
18 klodiana.lanaj@warrington.ufl.edu
19
20 Min-Hsuan Tu
21 University of Florida
22
min-hsuan.tu@warrington.ufl.edu
23
24
25 Amir Erez
27 amir.erez@warrington.ufl.edu
28
29
30 Lindy Archambeau
32 lindy.archambeau@warrington.ufl.edu
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 We would like to thank our Editor Amy Colbert and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful
57 guidance during the review process.
58
59
60
Academy of Management Journal Page 2 of 54
1
2
3
HEAVY IS THE HEAD THAT WEARS THE CROWN: AN ACTOR–CENTRIC
4
5 APPROACH TO DAILY PSYCHOLOGICAL POWER, ABUSIVE LEADER
6 BEHAVIOR, AND PERCEIVED INCIVILITY
7
8
9 Abstract
10
11
Recognizing that powerholders operate in dynamic relational and interdependent work contexts,
12 we posit that the effects of psychological power on powerholders are more complex than
13 currently depicted in the literature. Although psychological power prompts behaviors and
14 perceptions that harm the powerless, these reactions are not consequence-free for the actor. We
15 integrate the social distance theory of power with consent-based theories of power to posit that
16
although psychological power elicits negative behaviors and perceptions, these same reactions
17
18 hurt leaders’ subsequent well-being. To explore this possibility, we conducted an experimental
19 experience sampling study with a sample of managerial employees whom we surveyed for 10
20 consecutive workdays. We find that leaders enact more abusive behavior and perceive more
21 incivility from others on days when they are exposed to psychological power compared to days
22 when they are not. Leaders higher in agreeableness are less affected by psychological power. In
23
24
turn, abusive behavior and perceived incivility harm leaders’ subsequent well-being as indicated
25 by their reduced need fulfillment and ability to relax at home. We discuss theoretical
26 implications for research on psychological power, abusive leadership, perceived incivility, and
27 leader well-being, as well as practical implications for employees and their organizations.
28
29
Keywords: abusive leadership, power, well-being, incivility, experimental experience sampling;
30
31 daily leadership
32
33 “I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself
34 from the exercise of power over others” – Thomas Jefferson
35
36
37
38
39 Power is largely thought of as a corrupting force. Indeed, the notion that “power tends to
40
41 corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Acton, 1907: 504) is one that permeates
42
43 popular press, business culture, and politics. The popularity of this idea is based not only on
44
45
46 anecdotal observations, but also on abundant research showing that power causes individuals to
47
48 engage in behaviors that are harmful to the powerless (Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995;
49
50
Bugental, 1993; Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001; Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006;
51
52
53 Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Kipnis, 1972; Milgram, 1963; Zimbardo, 1973) and
54
55 motivates negative perceptions and attributions of others (Inesi, Lee, & Rios, 2014; Mooijman,
56
57
58
van Dijk, Ellemers, & van Dijk, 2015). This evidence is consistent with theoretical perspectives
59
60
1
2
3
that describe the psychological consequences of power. For example, the social distance theory
4
5
6 of power (Magee & Smith, 2013) suggests that power creates psychological distance between the
7
8 powerful1 and the powerless, prompting the powerful to engage in negative behaviors and
9
10
11
evaluations of others. Although this theoretical perspective has been applied to a variety of
12
13 situations, it is particularly relevant to understanding enacted abuse and perceived incivility by
14
15 organizational leaders.
16
17
18 Abusive behavior includes taking undue credit, shifting blame, and threatening,
19
20 humiliating, or ridiculing followers in front of others (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007;
21
22 Tepper, 2000). Perceived incivility refers to experienced low intensity deviant acts with
23
24
25 ambiguous intent to harm, such as being ignored, disrespected, or spoken to in a condescending
26
27 tone (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Blau & Andersson, 2005). Both abusive behavior and
28
29
perceived incivility are problematic in the workplace. For example, there is robust empirical
30
31
32 evidence that abusive acts harm followers’ psychological well-being, work performance,
33
34 creativity, and relationship quality at home (Aryee et al., 2007; Carlson, Ferguson, Perrewé, &
35
36
37 Whitten, 2011; Carlson, Ferguson, Hunter, & Whitten, 2012; Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012; Mawritz,
38
39 Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Wu & Hu, 2009).
40
41 Beyond these effects on followers, abusive behavior is also harmful to organizations, as
42
43
44 companies lose an estimated $23.8 billion annually in healthcare costs and productivity
45
46 reductions related to abuse (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006; Tepper, Moss, & Duffy,
47
48 2011). Similarly, experienced incivility interferes with employees’ own performance and has
49
50
51 been linked to annual organizational costs of $14,000 per employee (Porath & Pearson, 2010;
52
53 Rosen, Koopman, Gabriel, & Johnson, 2016).
54
55
56
1
57 We use “powerholders” and “powerful” interchangeably to refer to people experiencing a heightened sense of
58 psychological power.
59
60
1
2
3
Propagating the notion that “power corrupts,” social distance theory posits that power
4
5
6 may explain why leaders enact abusive behavior and why they perceive more incivility from
7
8 others. According to this theory, power causes leaders to behave in a negative way towards
9
10
11
others and to perceive that others are behaving negatively towards them because of the
12
13 behavioral and psychological tendencies associated with psychological power (Georgesen &
14
15 Harris, 1998; Inesi, Gruenfeld, & Galinsky, 2012; Kipnis, 1976; Magee & Smith, 2013;
16
17
18 Mooijman et al., 2015). Rarely, however, do applications of social distance theory examine what
19
20 happens to powerholders after they enact power-induced negative behaviors or after they
21
22 develop power-induced negative perceptions about how others have treated them. Thus, although
23
24
25 informative, this perspective on power does not portray a complete picture of how psychological
26
27 power affects powerful leaders because it largely ignores the consequences that these negative
28
29
behaviors and perceptions will have on leaders. Power is likely to have complex effects on
30
31
32 powerholders (Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015; Smith & Overbeck, 2014), and this
33
34 necessitates a reexamination of the broad generalization by social distance theory and similar
35
36
37 perspectives that power turns people into unaffected “jerks.”
38
39 In contrast to social distance theory, which for the most part overlooks the consequences
40
41 of power-induced negative behaviors and perceptions on leaders, consent-based theories of
42
43
44 power (Hindess, 1996; Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen, & Kraus, 2008; Overbeck, 2010) help describe
45
46 how these behaviors and perceptions may affect the powerful. These perspectives acknowledge
47
48 that powerful leaders operate within a sociological domain that includes interactions with
49
50
51 subordinates, and that subordinates’ possible reactions may affect powerholders’ own attitudes
52
53 and behaviors (e.g., Oc, Bashshur, & Moore, 2015). Considering social distance theory and
54
55
56
consent-based theories’ perspectives in conjunction recognizes that “powerful actors are not
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
entirely free” (Tost, 2015: 45) of the consequences of their power-induced negative behaviors
4
5
6 and perceptions. Instead, because of the interdependent nature of work, leaders may also suffer
7
8 from being in a powerful state.
9
10
11
Considering these possibilities, we present a theoretical model that integrates social
12
13 distance theory (Magee & Smith, 2013) with consent-based theories of power (Hindess, 1996;
14
15 Overbeck, 2010) to explore the consequences of psychological power on powerholders’
16
17
18 behaviors and perceptions within the context of leaders’ workdays. In an experimental
19
20 experience sampling study, we test the impact of psychological power on leaders’ propensity to
21
22 enact abusive behavior and to perceive incivility from others at work. These outcomes are
23
24
25 informed by social distance theory, which suggests that power motivates negative behaviors and
26
27 perceptions directed towards others. Consistent with perspectives that people vary in their
28
29
sensitivity to power (Maner, Gailliot, Menzel, & Kunstman, 2012), we also study agreeableness
30
31
32 as a moderator of these effects. In terms of consequences, we examine the effects of
33
34 psychological power, abusive behavior, and perceived incivility on leader well-being as captured
35
36
37 by need fulfillment and relaxation. These outcomes are informed by consent-based theories of
38
39 power, which suggest that there are ramifications to power-induced negative behaviors and
40
41 perceptions, and by recent research showing that daily leader behaviors have important
42
43
44 consequences for leaders’ own daily needs and well-being (Lanaj, Johnson, & Lee, 2016). Figure
45
46 1 depicts our conceptual model.
47
48 Our theoretical model and field experimental design make several key theoretical
49
50
51 contributions. First, because prior studies have for the most part studied the immediate effects of
52
53 psychological power in contexts that lack real interactions with subordinates (Overbeck, 2010),
54
55
56
they may have over-emphasized the corrupting effects of power on actors. Our integrated
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
theoretical framework presents a more veridical picture of the effects of psychological power for
4
5
6 the powerholder by examining its day-long effects in a naturalistic setting where leaders interact
7
8 with coworkers. Our findings suggest that powerholders are not unaffected “jerks,” but rather
9
10
11
that psychological power nudges leaders to enact abusive behavior and to perceive incivility, and
12
13 that these reactions are in turn associated with decreased well-being for powerholders.
14
15 Second, by focusing on actor outcomes we contribute to research on abusive leadership,
16
17
18 which has focused almost exclusively on follower outcomes. While this body of work offers a
19
20 consistent picture of the profoundly negative effects that abusive behavior has on followers, little
21
22 is known about how its enactment may impact abusive leaders themselves. Our integrative
23
24
25 framework helps us to think differently about abusive behavior by showing that actors may be
26
27 wounded by their own abuse. That is, our study shows that abuse is not consequence-free for the
28
29
abuser, but rather that engaging in abuse can ultimately come back to haunt the abuser.
30
31
32 Third, our study highlights the importance of leaders’ sense of psychological power in
33
34 predicting abusive behavior and perceptions of incivility. Recent research indicates that abusive
35
36
37 behavior fluctuates daily and most of its variance is explained within rather than between leaders
38
39 (Barnes, Lucianetti, Bhave, & Christian, 2015; Johnson, Venus, Lanaj, Mao, & Chang, 2012),
40
41 but most studies on antecedents of abusive leader behavior have focused on stable individual
42
43
44 differences and contextual features (Aryee et al., 2007; Burton, Hoobler, & Scheuer, 2012;
45
46 Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Kiewitz, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Scott, Garcia, & Tang, 2012). Similarly,
47
48 recent evidence suggests that there is substantial daily variance in perceptions of incivility, yet
49
50
51 little is known about predictors of daily perceived incivility (Rosen et al., 2016). Our research
52
53 contributes to these lines of work by showing that situationally activated psychological power is
54
55
56
a dynamic predictor of both abusive leader behavior and perceptions of incivility. This approach
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
is informative because it highlights the role that dynamic contextual factors play in prompting
4
5
6 leaders to engage in abusive behavior and to perceive incivility. From a practical standpoint our
7
8 findings suggest that curbing psychological power or putting agreeable people in powerful
9
10
11
situations may mitigate some of the negative consequences observed here.
12
13 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
14
15 Power is often defined as the asymmetric control over valued resources (Emerson, 1962;
16
17
18 Fiske, 2010; Keltner et al., 2003; Magee & Galinsky, 2008), or more broadly as the ability to
19
20 influence others while also remaining immune from influence (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld,
21
22 Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008). As these definitions imply, power is often construed as a
23
24
25 structural variable (Ng, 1980), in that powerholders have some actual ability to control resources
26
27 or to influence others. This control or influence is often based on power bestowed by the
28
29
organization (i.e., someone is given formal power based on his or her position), or based on a
30
31
32 particular skill or resource that an individual controls. Structural power, however, is not the only
33
34 way power can exist within organizational settings. Power is also a fluid psychological state that
35
36
37 can be activated by the situation (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003). Psychological power
38
39 refers to an individual’s perception of his or her ability to influence another person or other
40
41 people in a particular context (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012). While some research suggests
42
43
44 that psychological power and structural power have similar effects on leaders (Galinsky et al.,
45
46 2003; Weick & Guinote, 2008), other research suggests that they may affect them differently
47
48 (Bugental & Lewis, 1999; Tost, 2015). One reason for this difference is that structural power
49
50
51 may afford leaders access to organizational resources that psychological power does not (e.g.,
52
53 Sherman et al., 2012).
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Building on work from Keltner and colleagues (2003), we focus on situationally-induced
4
5
6 psychological power for three main reasons. First, leaders are likely to encounter situations and
7
8 events that may activate the concept of power on a daily basis (e.g., being reminded by their
9
10
11
supervisor that they are in charge, attending a meeting for management only, making a hiring or
12
13 firing decision), resulting in substantial daily variance in psychological power (Keltner et al.,
14
15 2003; Galinsky et al., 2003). Second, while psychological power varies day to day and moment
16
17
18 to moment, its effects on daily behaviors and perceptions at work have not been examined. And
19
20 third, research suggests that psychological power may have corrupting effects and may motivate
21
22 leaders to behave and react in negative ways (DeCelles, DeRue, Margolis, & Ceranic, 2012).
23
24
25 Therefore, day-level fluctuations in situationally-induced psychological power may allow us to
26
27 make important contributions in understanding leaders’ negative behaviors and perceptions, and
28
29
how these, in turn, affect leaders’ own well-being.
30
31
32 Power, Abusive Behavior, and Perceived Incivility
33
34 According to social distance theory, psychological power creates social distance between
35
36
37 the person possessing it and others (Inesi et al., 2012; Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn, & Otten,
38
39 2012; Magee & Smith, 2013), which disinclines powerful leaders from treating followers with
40
41 regard and causes powerholders to objectify others. Supporting these notions, recent evidence
42
43
44 suggests that experiencing power causes individuals to be less compassionate (van Kleef, Oveis,
45
46 van Der Löwe, LuoKogan, Goetz, & Keltner, 2008) and less concerned with treating others fairly
47
48 (Begley, Lee, & Hui, 2006; Blader & Chen, 2012), and that such disengagement may result in
49
50
51 the expression of abusive behavior (Berkowitz & Harman-Jones, 2004; Brondolo et al., 1998;
52
53 Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, & Bartholomew, 1994). These expectations are also in line with
54
55
56
prior research showing that power is associated with more negative behaviors toward others,
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
such as hostility (Prislin, Sawicki, & Williams, 2011), unethical behavior (Hirsh, Galinsky, &
4
5
6 Zhong, 2011), dominance (Cheng, Tracey, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich, 2012; Tost, Gino &
7
8 Larrick, 2013), norm violation (Galinsky et al., 2008), objectification of others (Galinsky et al.,
9
10
11
2006), and corruption (Bendahan, Zehnder, Pralong, & Antonakis, 2015), all of which are
12
13 conceptually similar to abusive acts in organizational settings. Therefore, consistent with our
14
15 arguments and prior research, we hypothesize:
16
17
18 Hypothesis 1: Psychological power will be positively related to abusive leader behavior.
19
20 Social distance theory suggests that, in addition to motivating abusive behavior, power
21
22 also changes the expectations that powerholders have for how others should treat them.
23
24
25 Specifically, social distance theory posits that powerholders “expect low-power individuals to
26
27 make significant efforts to affiliate with them” and that powerholders develop “miscalibrated
28
29
expectations about the extent to which their low-power counterparts will approach them” (Magee
30
31
32 & Smith, 2013: 160). This perspective posits that powerful leaders will expect special treatment
33
34 and respect from others and that they will monitor their environment closely to ascertain whether
35
36
37 or not this is the case (Major, 1994). Indeed, psychological power has been shown to increase
38
39 perceptions of unfairness against the self (Sawaoka, Hughes, & Ambady, 2015), suggesting that
40
41 power increases expectations for good treatment. Thus, whereas powerholders may be less
42
43
44 motivated to affiliate with others, they do expect others to try harder to affiliate with them and to
45
46 treat them well (e.g., Inesi et al., 2014).
47
48 This means that independent of followers’ behaviors, leaders in a powerful state are
49
50
51 likely to perceive followers as behaving in a disrespectful or discourteous manner because their
52
53 behaviors do not match the leaders’ inflated expectations. This prediction is in line with recent
54
55
56
applications of social distance theory, which have shown that power causes cynical attributions
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
and distrust of others’ behaviors and intentions (Inesi et al., 2012; Mooijman et al., 2015)
4
5
6 suggesting that powerholders perceive even benign interactions in an overly negative light. For
7
8 example, Mead and Maner (2012) argue that power causes leaders to interpret positive acts from
9
10
11
followers as threats, providing further evidence that power changes the way leaders interpret
12
13 interactions with followers and that it biases their perceptions in a negative way. Consistent with
14
15 predictions of social distance theory, we hypothesize:
16
17
18 Hypothesis 2: Psychological power will be positively related to perceptions of incivility
19
20 from others.
21
22 So far we have argued that psychological power will be associated with more abusive
23
24
25 behavior as well as with a heightened sense of perceived incivility from others. Because
26
27 perceived incivility often triggers retaliation, we also expect that it will lead to abusive behavior.
28
29
Andersson and Pearson (1999) argued that perceived incivility is typically met with an
30
31
32 aggressive response, as those who perceive incivility feel the need to retaliate and seek revenge.
33
34 These authors argued that when individuals experience even minor acts of incivility from others,
35
36
37 these perceptions are likely to be interpreted as threats to identity. Although acts of incivility are
38
39 by definition low in intensity, leaders are likely to respond to any perceived identity threat with
40
41 retaliation (Bunk & Magley, 2013; Kim & Shapiro, 2008). The behavioral responses associated
42
43
44 with incivility are similar in nature to the abusive leadership construct, and include deviant
45
46 behaviors (Lim & Teo, 2009), counterproductive behaviors (Penney & Spector, 2005) and the
47
48 destruction of resources (Foulk, Woolum, & Erez, 2016). Considered together, in addition to its
49
50
51 direct effect on abusive behavior, we expect that psychological power will influence abusive
52
53 behavior indirectly via perceived incivility. Consistent with these arguments, we hypothesize:
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Hypothesis 3: Perceived incivility from others will be positively related to abusive leader
4
5
6 behavior.
7
8 Hypothesis 4: Perceived incivility will partially mediate the relationship between
9
10
11
psychological power and abusive leader behavior.
12
13 The Moderating Effect of Agreeableness
14
15 Research suggests that not all people respond to psychological power in the same way.
16
17
18 Agreeable leaders – that is those who value social closeness, relationships, and harmony – may
19
20 be less susceptible to the negative behavioral and perceptual tendencies associated with
21
22 psychological power. Agreeable leaders are altruistic, sympathetic, generous, and eager to help
23
24
25 others (Costa & McCrae, 1985; Washington, Sutton, & Feild, 2006). They desire social closeness
26
27 rather than social distance, and their predisposition is likely to attenuate the behavioral and
28
29
perceptual responses that result from psychological power. Thus, while all leaders may be
30
31
32 subject to experiences of psychological power, we expect that agreeable leaders will react to
33
34 psychological power differently. For example, individuals with high levels of agreeableness are
35
36
37 more likely to maintain social relationships (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001), are more
38
39 sensitive to the needs of their subordinates (Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2011), and are
40
41 more likely to be described by their followers as having their best interests in mind (Walumbwa
42
43
44 & Schaubroeck, 2009).
45
46 Because the inherent essence of agreeableness is at odds with power-induced inclinations,
47
48 we expect that highly agreeable leaders will be less likely to respond to psychological power by
49
50
51 engaging in abusive behavior. Whereas psychological power induces leaders to abuse followers
52
53 because it numbs their emotional reactions to followers’ distress (Georgesen & Harris, 2000;
54
55
56
Magee & Smith, 2013; Neuberg & Fiske, 1987; Stevens & Fiske, 2000), agreeable leaders have a
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
natural concern for the well-being of their followers (Digman, 1989; McCrae & John, 1992) and
4
5
6 remain cognizant of the emotional responses of their followers. Agreeable leaders are
7
8 particularly concerned with treating followers fairly (Brown & Treviño, 2006) and may not enact
9
10
11 abusive behavior as readily when they are in a powerful state. Thus, we hypothesize:
12
13 Hypothesis 5: Agreeableness moderates the positive relationship between psychological
14
15 power and abusive leader behavior, such that this association is weaker for those higher
16
17
18 (vs. lower) in agreeableness.
19
20 We expect that agreeableness will also moderate the effects of psychological power on
21
22 perceived incivility. Power causes leaders to expect followers to make efforts to treat them well
23
24
25 (Magee & Smith, 2013), but agreeable leaders believe in dealing with others in a straightforward
26
27 manner (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987), likely reducing their need and desire for ingratiating
28
29
30
behaviors on the part of followers. Agreeable leaders are less likely to develop inflated
31
32 expectations of others’ conduct and to expect preferential treatment when in a powerful state.
33
34 Because agreeableness is at odds with propensities created by psychological power, we expect
35
36
37 that agreeable leaders are less likely to perceive incivility when they are in a powerful state.
38
39 Hence:
40
41 Hypothesis 6: Agreeableness moderates the positive relationship between psychological
42
43
44 power and perceived incivility, such that this association is weaker for those higher (vs.
45
46 lower) in agreeableness.
47
48
Abusive Behavior, Perceived Incivility, and Leader Well-Being
49
50
51 Our integrated framework speaks to the complex nature of psychological power in
52
53 organizational settings. Whereas social distance theory posits that power results in behaviors that
54
55
56
are harmful to the powerless (Acton, 1907; Bargh et al., 1995; Bugental, 1993; Chen et al., 2001;
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Galinsky et al., 2006; Keltner et al., 2003; Kipnis, 1972; Milgram, 1963; Zimbardo, 1973),
4
5
6 consent-based theories of power argue that power is relational and bi-directional (Cartwright &
7
8 Zander, 1968; Handgraaf, Van Dijk, Vermunt, Wilke, & De Dreu, 2008; Hollander, 2009;
9
10
11
Overbeck & Park, 2001; Tost, 2015; Tost, Wade-Benzoni, & Johnson, 2015), raising the
12
13 possibility that power and power-induced negative behaviors may also harm the powerholder.
14
15 This is because, as Tost (2015: 39) points out, some work interactions may act as reminders that
16
17
18 “the supervisor’s power and performance ability has constraints.”
19
20 Consent-based theories of power suggest that power-induced behaviors and perceptions
21
22 do not occur in a social vacuum because leaders are dependent on others. These perspectives
23
24
25 suggest that followers react to power and power-induced behaviors in ways likely to impact
26
27 powerholders’ own subsequent attitudes and behaviors. Expressing this sentiment, Keltner et al.
28
29
(2008: 18) wrote that the “tension between what is needed in leaders and what kind of behavior
30
31
32 power tends to produce is likely to be a central motive of social constraint processes by which
33
34 group members regulate the actions of high power individuals…” Powerholders are likely to
35
36
37 consider the ramifications of their negative behaviors and experiences because they care about
38
39 maintaining their current state of power (Fehr, Herz, & Wilkening, 2013; Magee & Galinsky,
40
41 2008). Since enacted abuse and perceived incivility thwart leaders’ ability to maintain power, we
42
43
44 expect that such experiences will reduce leaders’ own well-being.
45
46 Well-being is vitally important for organizational actors, because it impacts not only how
47
48 employees think and feel, but also how they do their jobs (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Danna &
49
50
51 Griffin, 1999). Well-being is a multi-dimensional construct (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Danna
52
53 & Griffin, 1999), and we focus on two dimensions that are crucial for employees at the day level:
54
55
56
daily need fulfillment and relaxation. Daily need fulfillment is an integral dimension of well-
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
being, which assesses actors’ satisfaction of their needs for autonomy, relatedness, and
4
5
6 competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000; La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000; Ryan, 1995;
7
8 Ryan & Frederick, 1997), and prior research at the day level shows that leaders’ daily behaviors
9
10
11
affect their daily need fulfillment (Lanaj et al., 2016). The three needs overlap considerably in
12
13 naturalistic settings (e.g., Baard, Deci & Ryan, 2004; Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006; Uysal, Lin, &
14
15 Knee, 2010), and thwarting any one of these needs results in negative effects on overall need
16
17
18 fulfillment (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 20120; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, &
19
20 Ryan, 2000).
21
22 Daily needs are fulfilled when individuals are able to engage in actions that help them
23
24
25 pursue valued goals and achieve desired end-states (Brunstein, 1993; Elliot, Sheldon, & Church,
26
27 1997; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Reis et al., 2000). In
28
29
our context, need fulfillment is maximized when leaders are unconstrained by those around them
30
31
32 to pursue their goals. Consent-based theories of power, however, suggest that power-induced
33
34 negative behaviors such as abuse may harm leaders’ subsequent well-being because they tend to
35
36
37 trigger negative reactions from followers, which threaten leaders’ future power and influence in a
38
39 group. For example, recent research suggests that as a response to daily abuse, employees may
40
41 constrain leaders by becoming less focused on their jobs (Barnes et al., 2015). This should thwart
42
43
44 leaders’ feelings of competence and relatedness because followers’ performance is a reflection of
45
46 leaders’ competence and influence (e.g., Lanaj et al., 2016), and may also thwart leaders’
47
48 feelings of autonomy by highlighting their dependency on followers to complete daily
49
50
51 responsibilities.
52
53 Similar to abuse, perceived incivility may reduce leaders’ daily need fulfillment because
54
55
56
it signals to leaders that followers showed disrespect that day, harming leaders’ need for
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
relatedness. Additionally, daily perceived incivility may constrain leaders’ ability to pursue task-
4
5
6 relevant goals. For example, recent research suggests that perceived incivility at the day level
7
8 drains cognitive resources because employees spend effort processing the interaction (Rosen et
9
10
11
al., 2016). The effort associated with managing daily incivility detracts from leaders’ ability to
12
13 make progress on task-relevant activities (e.g., Rafaeli, Erez, Ravid, Derfler-Rozin, Treister, &
14
15 Scheyer, 2012; Rosen et al., 2016) that fulfill their needs for autonomy and competence.
16
17
18 Furthermore, perceived incivility signals to the leader that s/he failed to exert sufficient influence
19
20 over followers that day at work, further harming his/her needs for autonomy and competence.
21
22 Taken together, our theorizing suggests that both abusive leader behavior and perceived
23
24
25 incivility will be negatively related to daily leader need fulfillment. When considered as part of
26
27 our integrated framework, this implies that when leaders are in a powerful state, they are more
28
29
likely to both engage in abusive behavior and to perceive more incivility from followers, and that
30
31
32 these experiences ultimately thwart leaders’ ability to satisfy their daily needs. Abusive behavior
33
34 and perceived incivility, therefore, should mediate the relationship between psychological power
35
36
37 and leader need fulfillment. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
38
39 Hypothesis 7: Abusive leader behavior is negatively related to leader daily need
40
41 fulfillment.
42
43
44 Hypothesis 8: Perceived incivility is negatively related to leader daily need fulfillment.
45
46 Hypothesis 9: Abusive leader behavior mediates the relationship between psychological
47
48 power and leader daily need fulfillment.
49
50
51 Hypothesis 10: Perceived incivility mediates the relationship between psychological
52
53 power and leader daily need fulfillment.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
The other component of well-being investigated in this study is relaxation, which refers
4
5
6 to a state in which employees are free from tension and anxiety. Prior research indicates that
7
8 relaxation is a fundamental component of well-being (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007; Sonnentag,
9
10
11
Mojza, Binnewies, & Scholl, 2008; Stone, Kennedy-Moore, & Neale, 1995; Van der Klink,
12
13 Blonk, Schene, & Van Dijk, 2001) because it energizes employees and protects them from
14
15 stressful experiences (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Relaxation is an
16
17
18 important measure of leader well-being because the leader role is particularly stressful, in that
19
20 leaders spend most of their time putting out figurative fires by handling various deadlines and
21
22 managing often difficult interpersonal relations at work (Ganster, 2005; Hambrick, Finkelstein,
23
24
25 & Mooney, 2005; Sparks, Faragher, & Cooper, 2001). Abusive acts and perceived incivility,
26
27 however, are likely to interfere with leaders’ ability to relax when at home because such negative
28
29
events prompt ruminative processes, such as worrying.
30
31
32 Leaders are likely to have a difficult time relaxing at home on days when they engage in
33
34 abusive behavior or perceive incivility from others because these events tend to trigger repetitive
35
36
37 thoughts about such negative events. One type of repetitive thought is worrying, which is defined
38
39 as “a chain of thoughts and images, negatively affect-laden and relatively uncontrollable” and as
40
41 “an attempt to engage in mental problem-solving on an issue whose outcome is uncertain but
42
43
44 contains the possibility of one or more negative outcomes” (Borkovec, Robinson, Pruzinsky, &
45
46 DePree, 1983: 10). In this way, worry is antithetical to relaxation, as a relaxed state is defined as
47
48 low activation with high positive affect (Stone et al., 1995). Indeed, perceived incivility has been
49
50
51 directly linked with worry and negative repetitive thoughts (Porath, MacInnis, & Folkes, 2010),
52
53 and harmful and abusive behavior has been shown to cause distress typically associated with
54
55
56
worry (Collins & Bailey, 1990; Kruppa, Hickey, & Hubbard, 1995; Steiner, Garcia, & Matthews,
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
1997). Perceived incivility from others is also likely to draw powerholders’ attention because it
4
5
6 indicates that their power at work and their ability to attain work-goals — both of which depend
7
8 on others’ acceptance of the powerholder’s legitimacy — may be in jeopardy.
9
10
11
Thus, our logic implies that abusive behavior and perceived incivility will prevent
12
13 relaxation at home because these behaviors threaten leaders’ status at work and because of the
14
15 ruminative processes typically associated with these experiences. Taken together, we expect that
16
17
18 when leaders are in a state of power, they are likely both to engage in abusive behavior and to
19
20 perceive incivility from others, and that these will prevent the leader from relaxing at home.
21
22 Hence, abusive leader behavior and perceived incivility will mediate the relationship between
23
24
25 psychological power and relaxation. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
26
27 Hypothesis 11: Abusive leader behavior is negatively related to leader relaxation at
28
29
home.
30
31
32 Hypothesis 12: Perceived incivility is negatively related to leader relaxation at home.
33
34 Hypothesis 13: Abusive leader behavior mediates the relationship between psychological
35
36
37 power and leader relaxation at home.
38
39 Hypothesis 14: Perceived incivility mediates the relationship between psychological
40
41 power and leader relaxation at home.
42
43
44 METHOD
45 Participants
46
47
48
We invited 116 professional and managerial employees to participate in this research.
49
50 The participants were enrolled in executive MBA courses at a large southeastern university,
51
52 participated voluntarily, and received personalized developmental feedback reports and course
53
54
55 extra credit for taking part in the study. We received useable data from 108 participants.
56
57 Participants’ average age was 33.78 (SD = 6.78), and their average work experience was 10.82
58
59
60
1
2
3
years (SD = 7.28). The majority of the sample (68.3%) was male; 70.3% of the sample identified
4
5
6 themselves as white, 12.3% identified themselves as Hispanic, and 10.1% identified themselves
7
8 as Asian/Pacific Islander. Participants held occupational positions such as executive vice
9
10
11
president, business development manager, and director of operations across a variety of
12
13 industries such as medicine, engineering, education, and banking. On average, participants
14
15 worked 9.38 hours each day (SD = 2.24).
16
17
18 Procedure
19
20 We collected data over a three work-week period via an initial one-time background
21
22 survey followed by a series of daily surveys. The background survey was completed in the first
23
24
25 week and included the informed consent release for participation in the study and person-level
26
27 measures for demographics and agreeableness. The daily surveys were completed in the second
28
29
and third weeks, and were emailed to participants three times each day — morning, afternoon,
30
31
32 and evening — for 10 consecutive work days (Monday-Friday). We sent the morning survey
33
34 between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. each morning, and it included the power manipulation (described
35
36
37 below). We sent the afternoon survey at 4 p.m. each day, and it measured abusive leader
38
39 behavior, perceived incivility, positive and negative affect, and work performance. We sent the
40
41 evening survey at 8 p.m. each evening, and it measured daily need fulfillment and relaxation.
42
43
44 The average start time for the morning survey was 8:28 a.m., the average start time for the
45
46 afternoon survey was 5:23 p.m., and the average start time for the evening survey was 8:24 p.m.
47
48 The average time lapse between the morning survey and the afternoon survey was 9.05 hours,
49
50
51 and the average time lapse between the afternoon survey and the evening survey was 4.26 hours.
52
53 From the 108 individuals who participated in the study, we received a total of 832 day-level data
54
55
56
points (out of a total possible of 1,080) for a response rate of 77%.
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Psychological Power Manipulation
4
5
6 On each of the 10 days of the study we randomly assigned participants to the control or
7
8 experimental condition using a constrained random matrix, which ensured that during the study
9
10
11
participants were in the power condition for 5 out of the 10 days of the study, and in the control
12
13 condition for the other 5 days. Furthermore, on each day of the study, half of the participants in
14
15 our sample were in the power condition and the other half in the control condition. The order of
16
17
18 manipulation and control conditions was random within and across the participants. We
19
20 described the manipulation and control tasks to the participants as mental tasks designed to
21
22 sharpen their focus.
23
24
25 We manipulated power in the morning survey by utilizing validated methods previously
26
27 shown to induce psychological power (Galinsky et al., 2003; Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld,
28
29
2007; Smith & Trope, 2006). Consistent with recommendations from prior research, we used
30
31
32 both conscious (writing induction) and unconscious (word and sentence completion)
33
34 manipulations of power in this study. Whereas both types of manipulations have similar effects
35
36
37 (Welsh & Ordóñez, 2014), they activate power in two complimentary ways. Subconscious
38
39 primes activate the concept of power, whereas conscious primes activate the mindset of power
40
41 (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000). According to Galinsky et al. (2003), power blurs the line between a
42
43
44 mindset and a concept, thus we employed both methods to ensure that both psychological states
45
46 of power were manipulated.
47
48 The priming task consisted of either a word fragment task or a sentence completion task.
49
50
51 In the word fragment tasks (Magee et al., 2007), participants were shown 10 word fragments
52
53 with several characters missing (i.e., “p o w _ r”) and asked to complete each fragment with the
54
55
56
first word that came to mind. In the power condition, seven of the word fragments were words
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
associated with power (“boss,” “authority,” “executive,” for example), and in the control
4
5
6 condition all words were designed to be neutral in nature (“guitar,” “island,” “drawer,” for
7
8 example). In the sentence completion tasks (Smith & Trope, 2006), participants were shown ten
9
10
11
combinations of five words and were asked to create a grammatically correct sentence for each
12
13 combination using four of the words (“somewhat prepared I was told” = “I was somewhat
14
15 prepared”). Seven out of the ten combinations in the power condition were designed to create
16
17
18 sentences that were associated with power (“The executive decided yesterday,” “She dominates
19
20 the class,” “His authority is unquestioned”). In the control condition, all ten combinations were
21
22 designed to create sentences that were neutral in nature (“The party was fun,” “The oranges are
23
24
25 sweet,” “The sky is blue”).
26
27 The second part of the manipulation asked participants to write a short paragraph about a
28
29
recent experience (Galinsky et al., 2003). In the power condition, participants were asked to
30
31
32 write 2-5 sentences describing a situation in which they had power. In the control condition,
33
34 participants were asked to write about an experience that was neutral in terms of power. Our
35
36
37 instructions varied across days, such that participants reflected and reported on different
38
39 activities on each of the 10 study days. However, the writing inductions were consistent with the
40
41 prime manipulations, such that the prime and the writing induction were either both control or
42
43
44 both power for a given participant on a given day.
45
46 We did not include an explicit manipulation check in this study because for
47
48 manipulations like these to work well it is important that participants are not aware of their
49
50
51 purpose (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996; Lombardi, Higgins, & Bargh, 1987). Furthermore, by
52
53 asking participants to reflect on their own perceived power, repeated manipulation checks could
54
55
56
themselves serve as a manipulation of power (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006). Although
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
participants may have still become aware of the manipulation over the course of the study,
4
5
6 excluding a manipulation check minimizes this effect. Thus, we felt that the risk of including an
7
8 explicit manipulation check outweighed the benefits2.
9
10
11
Measures
12
13 Daily abusive leader behavior. We measured daily abusive behavior in the afternoon
14
15 survey with a five-item scale recently published in other daily studies (e.g., see Barnes et al.,
16
17
18 2015; Johnson et al., 2012). Participants indicated how often (from 1 = never to 6 = five or more
19
20 times) they had engaged in various abusive behaviors that day at work. Example items are:
21
22 “Yelled or swore at a work group member,” “Behaved in a nasty or rude manner to a work group
23
24
25 member,” and “Made fun of a work group member.” The average coefficient alpha was .66.
26
27 Daily perceived incivility. We measured perceived incivility in the afternoon survey with
28
29
an adapted version of the five-item scale developed by Cortina, Magley, Williams, and Langhout
30
31
32 (2001). Consistent with Lim, Ilies, Koopman, Christoforou, and Arvey (2016) and Rosen et al.
33
34 (2016), we instructed participants to focus their answers on their experiences at work that day.
35
36
37 Participants rated their agreement along a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
38
39 strongly agree). Example items are: “A coworker put me down or was condescending to me,” “A
40
41 coworker addressed me in unprofessional terms,” and “A coworker excluded me from
42
43
44 professional comradery.” The average coefficient alpha was .90.
45
46
2
47 We used the existing data to do a post hoc manipulation check. Following procedures described by Galinsky et al.
48 (2003), we randomly selected 100 of the responses that participants wrote in the writing induction portion of the
49 power manipulation, with 50 of these 100 coming from the power condition and 50 coming from the control
50 condition. We asked three coders who were blind to both the purpose of the study as well as the experimental
51 condition to read each response and answer to the question, “How much power does this person describe having?”
52 on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = None at all, to 5 = A great deal. We conducted an aggregation test that
53 suggested there was a high degree of agreement among the raters (ICC(2) = .82; (LeBreton & Senter, 2008);
54 therefore we aggregated the responses from the three coders into a single variable. We conducted an ANOVA,
55 which showed that participants indicated having significantly more power in the power condition than in the control
56 condition (Mpower = 3.38, SDpower = .79; Mcontrol = 1.96, SDcontrol = .48; F(1,98) = 117.84, p < .01), suggesting that the
57 power manipulation was successful.
58
59
60
1
2
3
Daily need fulfillment. We measured need fulfillment in the evening using the nine-item
4
5
6 scale developed by La Guardia and colleagues (2000). Participants indicated their agreement
7
8 with each of the items (1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = very much), and examples include,
9
10
11
“Today, I felt like a competent person,” “Today, I felt respected and cared about by my
12
13 coworkers,” and “Today, I had a say in what happened and could voice my opinion.” Consistent
14
15 with prior research, we collapsed all items into one overall scale (La Guardia et al., 2000; Lanaj
16
17
18 et al., 2016; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). The average coefficient alpha was .83.
19
20 Daily relaxation. We used four items by Sonnentag and Fritz (2007) to measure
21
22 relaxation in the evening survey. Participants expressed their agreement with each item about
23
24
25 activities they did that evening at home (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and sample
26
27 items are, “I kicked back and relaxed,” “I did relaxing things,” and “I took time for leisure.” The
28
29
average coefficient alpha was .97.
30
31
32 Agreeableness. We used eight items from the Big Five Mini-Markers scale (Saucier,
33
34 1994) to measure trait agreeableness (response scale, 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = very
35
36
37 much) and examples are “Cooperative,” “Warm,” and “Kind.” The coefficient alpha was .78.
38
39 Controls
40
41 State affect. We measured positive and negative affect in the afternoon survey with 5
42
43
44 items each from the short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS;
45
46 Mackinnon, Jorm, Christensen, Korten, Jacomb, & Rodgers, 1999; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,
47
48 1988). Participants indicated the extent to which each item captured how they felt at that moment
49
50
51 using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = very much). Example items for
52
53 positive affect are “Inspired,” “Alert,” and “Excited,” and example items for negative affect are
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
“Afraid,” “Upset,” and “Nervous.” The average coefficient alphas were .94 and .85 for positive
4
5
6 and negative affect, respectively.
7
8 Daily work performance. We adapted four items from the scale developed by Williams
9
10
11
and Anderson (1991) to measure daily work performance. Similar to Koopman, Lanaj, and Scott
12
13 (2016) who used these items in a daily study similar to this one, we adapted these items by
14
15 asking participants to rate their performance at work that day. Participants rated their agreement
16
17
18 along a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) with each of the four
19
20 items about their performance at work that day. Example items are: “I have performed the tasks
21
22 expected of me,” “I have engaged in activities that directly affect my performance,” and “I have
23
24
25 adequately completed my assigned duties.” The average coefficient alpha was .93.
26
27 We controlled for positive and negative affect throughout our model because prior
28
29
research suggests that affective states predict abusive behavior in organizations (Tepper, 2007),
30
31
32 and because affective states have also been shown to have a close relationship with incivility
33
34 (Porath & Erez, 2009) and well-being (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Thus, in order to explore the
35
36
37 unique effects of power on the focal variables in our model, it was important to remove the
38
39 influence of affect from these variables. We also controlled for the effect of daily work
40
41 performance because performance can influence negative behaviors (Schilpzand, De Pater, &
42
43
44 Erez, 2016) and because leader performance is likely to influence a leader’s ability to relax (Fritz
45
46 & Sonnentag, 2009) as well as a leader’s need fulfillment (Deci & Ryan, 2008).
47
48 We conducted a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis to verify the distinctiveness of
49
50
51 the variables in our study. At the within-level, we modeled abusive behavior, perceived
52
53 incivility, need fulfillment, relaxation, positive affect, negative affect, and daily work
54
55
56
performance. At the between-level, we included agreeableness. The fit statistics for this model
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
were acceptable (χ2 = 1779.97, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .91, SRMR = .05). We compared this
5
6 model to several alternative models using the Satorra-Bentler χ2 difference test incorporating the
7
8
Maximum-Likelihood Restricted scaled correction factors (Satorra & Bentler, 2001). We
9
10
11 compared our full model to three models: 1) a model in which our mediators (abusive behavior
12
13 and perceived incivility) loaded on a single factor and the rest of the items loaded on their
14
15
16
respective constructs; 2) a model in which our well-being outcomes (need fulfillment and
17
18 relaxation) loaded on a single factor and the rest of the items loaded on their respective
19
20 constructs; and 3) a model in which a single factor was estimated for our mediators and a single
21
22
23 factor was estimated for our outcomes, and the rest of the items loaded on their respective
24
25 constructs. Results indicated that our proposed model fit the data significantly better than these
26
27
alternative models (χ2 = 4556.06 (6), p < .01; χ2 = 1049.44(6), p < .01 and χ2 = 2466.33(11), p <
28
29
30 .01, respectively).
31
32 RESULTS
33
34
35 Table 1 shows within- and between-person correlations as well as descriptive statistics
36
37 for all study variables. To ensure that multilevel modeling was appropriate for our analyses, we
38
39 examined the within-person variance in our endogenous variables. We estimated a null model for
40
41
42 each variable using MPlus 7.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 2014) to partition each variable’s variance
43
44 into within-person and between-person components. Analyses indicated that all four of our focal
45
46
variables had a substantial within-person variance necessitating the use of multilevel modeling
47
48
49 (abusive leadership = 76%; perceived incivility = 55%, need fulfillment = 42%; relaxation =
50
51 69%). We used MPlus 7.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 2014) to test our hypotheses by running
52
53
54
multilevel path analyses. Figure 1 shows the path model that we tested; we exclude control
55
56 variables for simplicity, and the full analyses are shown in the tables.
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Following recommendations by Hofmann, Griffin, and Gavin (2000), we group-mean
4
5
6 centered all level 1 predictors. Group-mean centering removes between-person confounds,
7
8 allowing for a more veridical assessment of within-person effects. We grand-mean centered our
9
10
11
level 2 moderator, agreeableness. Results of the within-person path model that simultaneously
12
13 tests all relationships of interest are presented in Table 2. Table 3 builds on the within-person
14
15 model by adding between-person effects for agreeableness. We modeled hypothesized
16
17
18 associations with free slopes, and control variables with fixed effects.
19
20 Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 predicted that power would be positively related to abusive leader
21
22 behavior (H1) and perceived incivility (H2), and that perceived incivility would be positively
23
24
25 related to abusive leadership behavior (H3). We found support for these hypotheses. As Table 2
26
27 shows, power was positively related to both abusive behavior (B = .04, p = .041) and perceived
28
29
incivility (B = .10, p = .001), and perceived incivility was positively related to abusive behavior
30
31
32 (B = .03, p = .049).
33
34 Hypothesis 4 predicted that perceived incivility would mediate the relationship between
35
36
37 power and abusive behavior. To test Hypothesis 4, we followed the procedure recommended by
38
39 Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010) for testing mediation relationships in multilevel models.
40
41 This procedure takes into account the asymmetric sampling distribution of indirect effects. Using
42
43
44 parameter estimates and standard deviations obtained from our model that simultaneously
45
46 estimated all paths of interest, we used a Monte Carlo simulation with 20,000 replications to
47
48 construct 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effects. This procedure is commonly used to
49
50
51 estimate indirect effects in multilevel models (e.g., Foulk et al., 2016; Lanaj, Johnson, & Barnes,
52
53 2014; Shi, Johnson, Liu, & Wang, 2012). We estimated the covariances between the random
54
55
56
slopes in our model (Bauer, Preacher, & Gil, 2006; Kenny, Korchmaros, & Bolger, 2003). The
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
slope covariances were non-significant, thus we omitted them from the tests of our hypotheses
4
5
6 (Tofighi, West, & MacKinnon, 2013). The indirect effect of power on abusive leadership via
7
8 perceived incivility was .003, and the 95% confidence interval did not contain zero (95% CI
9
10
11
[.0004, .01]), supporting Hypothesis 4.
12
13 Hypotheses 5 and 6 predicted that agreeableness would moderate the relationship
14
15 between psychological power and both abusive leader behavior (H5) and perceived incivility
16
17
18 (H6). As Table 3 shows, the moderating effect of agreeableness on the relationship between
19
20 psychological power and abusive behavior was negative and significant (B = -.05, p = .048),
21
22 supporting Hypothesis 5. Following the recommendation by Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken
23
24
25 (2003), we plotted the interaction at conditional values of agreeableness (1 SD above and below
26
27 the mean). This relationship is presented in Figure 2. We followed procedures recommended by
28
29
Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006) to estimate simple slopes, which confirmed that the
30
31
32 relationship between psychological power and abusive behavior is weaker for individuals higher
33
34 (+1SD) in agreeableness (B = .01, p = .449) versus individuals lower (-1SD) in agreeableness (B
35
36
37 = .06, p = .023). We did not find support for Hypothesis 6 — agreeableness did not moderate the
38
39 effect of psychological power on perceived incivility (B = .05, p = .390).
40
41 Hypotheses 7 and 8 predicted that abusive leader behavior (H7) and perceived incivility
42
43
44 (H8) would both be negatively related to leader need fulfillment. Results of these analyses are
45
46 presented in Table 2 and show that both abusive behavior (B = -.19, p = .007) and perceived
47
48 incivility (B = -.10, p = .030) had negative associations with daily need fulfillment, supporting
49
50
51 both Hypotheses 7 and 8. Hypotheses 9 and 10 predicted that abusive leader behavior (H9) and
52
53 perceived incivility (H10) would mediate the relationship between psychological power and need
54
55
56
fulfillment. We tested these indirect effects using the method recommended by Preacher et al.
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
(2010) and found that the indirect effect of power on need fulfillment via abusive behavior was -
4
5
6 .01 (95% CI [-.02, -.0001]), and that the indirect effect of psychological power on need
7
8 fulfillment mediated by perceived incivility was -.01 (95% CI [-.02, -.0001]). Neither confidence
9
10
11
interval contained zero, thus both Hypotheses 9 and 10 were supported.
12
13 Hypotheses 11 and 12 predicted that abusive leader behavior (H11) and perceived
14
15 incivility (H12) would be negatively related to leader relaxation. Results of these analyses are
16
17
18 presented in Table 2 and show that abusive leader behavior was significantly related to leader
19
20 relaxation (B = -.22, p = .010) but perceived incivility was not (B = .08, p = .305), supporting
21
22 Hypothesis 11 but not Hypothesis 12. Hypotheses 13 and 14 predicted that abusive leader
23
24
25 behavior (H13) and perceived incivility (H14) would mediate the relationship between
26
27 psychological power and relaxation. The indirect effect of psychological power on relaxation via
28
29
abusive leader behavior was -.01 (95% CI [-.02, -.0001]), and the indirect effect of psychological
30
31
32 power on relaxation via perceived incivility was .01 (95% CI [-.01, .02]). The confidence
33
34 interval for the mediating effect of abusive leader behavior did not contain zero, but the
35
36
37 confidence interval for the mediating effect of perceived incivility did contain zero; thus,
38
39 Hypothesis 13 was supported but Hypothesis 14 was not supported3.
40
41 DISCUSSION
42
43
44 Although there is clear and compelling evidence that interacting with powerful
45
46 individuals can be harmful to the powerless (Bowling & Michel, 2011; Burris, Detert, &
47
48
3
49 Although we did not hypothesize moderated mediation, we investigated whether agreeableness moderated the
50 indirect effects of psychological power on relaxation and need fulfillment mediated by abusive behavior. To test for
51 moderated mediation (Edwards & Lambert, 2007), we followed procedures by Preacher et al. (2010) and calculated
52 the magnitude of the indirect effects at conditional levels of agreeableness (i.e., at +/- 1SD; Preacher, Rucker, &
53 Hayes, 2007). Results indicated that abusive behavior mediated the relationship between psychological power and
54 need fulfillment at low levels of agreeableness (95% CI [-.02, -.002]) but not at high levels of agreeableness (95%
55 CI [-.01, .01]). Similarly, results suggested that abusive behavior mediated the relationship between psychological
56 power and relaxation at low levels of agreeableness (95% CI [-.03, -.003]) but not at high levels of agreeableness
57 (95% CI [-.02, .01]). Thus, agreeableness moderated the indirect effects of psychological power on both well-being
58 outcomes.
59
60
1
2
3
Chiaburu, 2008; Haggard, Robert, & Rose, 2011; Hobman, Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2009;
4
5
6 Lin, Wang, & Chen, 2013; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007), little is known about how
7
8 power-induced negative behaviors and perceptions affect powerholders themselves. Integrating
9
10
11
social distance theory (Magee & Smith, 2013) with consent-based theories of power (Hindess,
12
13 1996; Overbeck, 2010) allows us to shed new light on how psychological power impacts leaders’
14
15 behavior, perceptions, and subsequent well-being. We found that psychological power increased
16
17
18 both leaders’ abusive behavior and leaders’ perceived incivility from others, and that leader
19
20 perceived incivility partially mediated the relationship between psychological power and abusive
21
22 behavior. Both abusive behavior and perceived incivility harmed leaders’ well-being, as
23
24
25 indicated by reduced daily need fulfillment and reduced relaxation at home. Furthermore,
26
27 abusive leader behavior and perceived incivility mediated the relationship between psychological
28
29
power and leader well-being. Consistent with our theoretical arguments that the effects of
30
31
32 psychological power would not influence all leaders in the same way, we found that the impact
33
34 of psychological power on abusive leader behavior was weaker for leaders higher in
35
36
37 agreeableness. In all, we show that those in a state of elevated psychological power are neither
38
39 universally monsters (as demonstrated by our agreeableness moderator), nor unaffected jerks (as
40
41 presented by our findings that power-induced abusive behavior hurt actors’ well-being). Rather,
42
43
44 leaders are susceptible to psychological power, which causes them to have negative interactions
45
46 with others, subsequently hurting their own well-being. These insights and findings offer a
47
48 number of theoretical and practical implications.
49
50
51 Theoretical Implications
52
53 Our work makes several theoretical contributions to the domains of power and
54
55
56
leadership. First, we show that psychological power has more complex effects on powerholders
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
than currently recognized in the power literature. For example, research applying social distance
4
5
6 theory has for the most part ignored the interdependent work context in which the powerful
7
8 operate. As Overbeck (2010: 36) noted, social psychological studies of power have tended to
9
10
11
study power in “situations that prompt a powerful mind-set but lack active relations with
12
13 subordinates.” This limited scope is problematic because “although social power can be negative,
14
15 and power holders can be corrupt, a science that explained only those dimensions of experience
16
17
18 would necessarily be incomplete” (Overbeck, 2010: 30). Our integration of social distance theory
19
20 with consent-based theories of power leverages the notion that the powerful operate in
21
22 interdependent contexts and provides rich insights on the effects that psychological power has on
23
24
25 actors across important life domains. Our approach also responds to recent calls for integrative
26
27 theoretical work that investigates the complex effects of power (Galinsky et al., 2015), and offers
28
29
promise for future work interested in examining how psychological power affects powerholders.
30
31
32 Second, we contribute to the literatures on abusive leader behavior and perceived
33
34 incivility by showing that daily variation in psychological power is a contextual predictor of both
35
36
37 constructs. Recent evidence suggests that there is substantial daily within-person variance in both
38
39 enacted abuse and perceived incivility (Barnes et al., 2015; Rosen et al., 2016), yet studies
40
41 examining predictors have tended to assume that these behaviors are relatively stable. However,
42
43
44 as we show here, leaders may act abusively and perceive incivility not necessarily because of
45
46 who they are, but because of their current state of psychological power.
47
48 Third, we contribute to the literature on leader well-being. Although leadership is a social
49
50
51 process involving both leaders and followers, little attention has been devoted to how leader
52
53 behaviors affect the leader. Since interpersonal events are bidirectional, it is important to
54
55
56
understand how positive and negative leader behaviors and perceptions may affect the leaders
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
themselves. Recent work has established that positive leader behaviors such as transformational
4
5
6 acts are beneficial for leaders because they improve their moods and fulfill their daily needs
7
8 (Lanaj et al., 2016). Contributing to this line of work, we examine negative leader behaviors and
9
10
11
perceptions at work and how they impact leaders’ well-being at home.
12
13 Finally, we extend frameworks on power by identifying agreeableness as an individual
14
15 difference that buffers the extent to which leaders react to psychological power. Specifically, we
16
17
18 find that the effects of psychological power on abusive leader behavior and subsequently on
19
20 leader well-being are weaker for people who are higher in agreeableness. Although agreeable
21
22 people enact less abusive behavior as a function of being in a powerful state, they still perceive
23
24
25 more incivility from others, and respond by enacting more abusive behavior. Thus, although
26
27 agreeableness does offer some protection to leaders, it does not serve as a holistic inoculator for
28
29
the negative effects of power. Nevertheless, this finding is important because it suggests that
30
31
32 prosocial individual traits may be beneficial to both powerful leaders and to their followers.
33
34 Practical Implications
35
36
37 Our work offers several practical implications for leaders, managers, and organizations.
38
39 As shown here, leaders’ sense of psychological power can be activated by even minor encounters
40
41 with stimuli associated with power (Galinsky et al., 2003), and as a result it varies from day to
42
43
44 day or situation to situation. Since power causes leaders to engage in abusive behavior, followers
45
46 of leaders who regularly experience psychological power are likely to perform worse (Aryee,
47
48 Sun, Chen, & Debrah, 2008; Jian, Kwan, Qiu, Liu, & Yim, 2012; Xu, Huang, Lam, & Miao,
49
50
51 2012). Thus, high levels of psychological power may ultimately harm a leader’s ability to obtain
52
53 (or maintain) structural power if these leaders also sustain high levels of abusive behavior. It may
54
55
56
be prudent, therefore, for organizations to have structures where leaders have regular meetings
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
with someone higher up in the organization to whom they are accountable and who can give
4
5
6 them honest feedback about their behavior. Similarly, as we show here, leaders may enact
7
8 abusive behavior and perceive incivility not because they are terrible individuals, but because of
9
10
11
situational primes. Awareness that power may motivate negative reactions towards others is the
12
13 first step to self-regulation; thus, leaders should be aware of the potential corrupting effects that
14
15 power may have on them. Our work also suggests that, all else being equal, it may be appropriate
16
17
18 to assign powerful roles to agreeable leaders, as agreeableness weakens the relationship between
19
20 leader power and abusive behavior.
21
22 As seen here, power indirectly interferes with leaders’ ability to relax at home. In
23
24
25 addition to implementing accountability structures that prohibit abusive behavior towards
26
27 followers, organizations may also develop relaxation opportunities for leaders such as mid-day
28
29
breaks, opportunities to disengage from work, and mindfulness practices. In addition to
30
31
32 improving leader well-being, these practices may promote better self-regulation among leaders,
33
34 who may then be more mindful when interacting with their subordinates. For example, recent
35
36
37 research shows that mindfulness buffers against negative emotions that link perceptions of
38
39 injustice to retaliation (Long & Christian, 2015). Leaders in powerful states who also participate
40
41 in mindfulness practices, therefore, may be less reactive towards their followers and may enact
42
43
44 less abusive behavior.
45
46 Strengths, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research
47
48 This study has several strengths worth nothing. We are among the first to manipulate
49
50
51 power at the day level in a field experiment, which enriches the conclusions drawn from our
52
53 work. The field experiment design also allows us to make attributions about the causal order of
54
55
56
the associations observed among our variables of interest. Additionally, our participants are
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
managerial and professional workers from a variety of organizations, lending generalizability to
4
5
6 the results across organizations. Furthermore, we surveyed participants three times each day for
7
8 10 consecutive work-days, which allowed us to separate our measures in time and to get multiple
9
10
11
observations for our variables. Despite these strengths, as is the case with most studies, our study
12
13 has several limitations.
14
15 First, while our independent variable of psychological power was manipulated, the
16
17
18 measures of our mediators and dependent variables are all self-reported, raising concerns of
19
20 common method and source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The self-
21
22 reported nature of our measures was necessary because leaders are the best person to evaluate
23
24
25 their own perceived incivility and well-being. Arguably, leaders may also be the best person to
26
27 rate abusive acts enacted towards others since followers may not be privy to all leader-follower
28
29
interactions (Courtright, Gardner, Smith, McCormick, & Colbert, 2015). Furthermore, from a
30
31
32 statistical point of view, we group-mean centered our level 1 variables, which removes between
33
34 person variance; thus, social desirability and other person-level confounds cannot explain the
35
36
37 effects observed here, further mitigating common source concerns. Nevertheless, we invite future
38
39 research to replicate our findings by collecting data from multiple sources.
40
41 Additionally, we only examined behavioral outcomes at work but power may also
42
43
44 influence negative behaviors at home, such as abruptness or incivility towards family members.
45
46 Alternatively, abusive behavior enacted at work may induce a sense of guilt, which leaders may
47
48 try to assuage by enacting positive behaviors towards their family members, such as completing
49
50
51 more chores, helping more, and being more present. We focused only on the negative
52
53 consequences of power in this study because of the predictions informed by our theoretical
54
55
56
framework; however it is possible that psychological power may also influence positive
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
behaviors, such as an enhanced sense of confidence. We invite future research to examine both
4
5
6 the positive and negative consequences of power at work as well as at home.
7
8 As part of our manipulation of psychological power, we used the writing induction
9
10
11
approach developed by Galinsky and colleagues (2003). We did so for two main reasons: 1)
12
13 because this manipulation has been widely validated in prior research (Brinol, Petty, Valle,
14
15 Rucker, & Becerra, 2007; DeCelles et al., 2012; DeWall, Baumeister, Mead, & Vohs, 2011;
16
17
18 Galinsky et al., 2003; Inesi, Botti, Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2011; Lammers & Stapel, 2009;
19
20 Lammers, Stoker, & Stapel, 2009; Rucker & Galinsky, 2008; Rucker, Dubois, & Galinsky,
21
22 2011), and 2) because it has been recognized as one of the dominant approaches to manipulating
23
24
25 psychological power in organizational studies (Anderson & Brion, 2014; Sturm & Antonakis,
26
27 2015). Despite its wide use, some concerns have been recently raised regarding this manipulation
28
29
(Sturm & Antonakis, 2015; Tost, 2015). For example, according to Tost (2015), the writing
30
31
32 manipulation may trigger a competitive orientation in powerholders by reminding them of
33
34 situations where their goals were in conflict with someone else’s. Alternatively, Tost (2015)
35
36
37 argues that competitiveness may be a natural node in the cognitive network for power that is
38
39 accessed by this manipulation. As a result, the writing manipulation may drive competitiveness
40
41 and make communal behaviors associated with power difficult to observe. Although our focus in
42
43
44 this paper is not on communal behavior, this manipulation may cause us to observe a stronger
45
46 negative relationship between psychological power and well-being if it indeed triggers more
47
48 abusive behavior than other manipulations. Testing the distinction between power and
49
50
51 competitiveness goes beyond the scope of our current work, but we invite future research to
52
53 disentangle these effects by utilizing different manipulations of power.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Although our theoretical model suggests that perceived incivility triggers abusive
4
5
6 behavior (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Bunk & Magley, 2013), it could be that abusive behavior
7
8 prompts perceived incivility from others. To examine this empirically, in supplemental tests we
9
10
11
re-ran our multilevel path model but reversed the hypothesized path between perceived incivility
12
13 and abusive behavior, such that abusive behavior predicted perceived incivility. Since these
14
15 models are non-nested, we used the procedure recommended by Hooper, Coughlan, and Mullen
16
17
18 (2008) as well as Wang and Chan (2011), which suggests comparing information criteria
19
20 statistics. All three information criteria results suggested that the model with the relationship
21
22 between abusive leadership and perceived incivility in the hypothesized direction (AIC =
23
24
25 3954.64, BIC = 4148.41, SSBIC = 4018.21) fit the data better than the model with this
26
27 relationship in the reverse direction (AIC = 3977.32, BIC = 4171.10, SSBIC = 4040.89).
28
29
Although these tests assuage reverse-causality concerns to some degree, they are not conclusive
30
31
32 and future research should investigate the directionality between perceived incivility and abusive
33
34 behavior in contexts where they are separated in time.
35
36
37 Our findings that psychological power reduces daily well-being via daily abusive
38
39 behavior and perceived incivility are at odds with between-person research suggesting that
40
41 structural power is associated with increased well-being (Sherman et al., 2012). One reason for
42
43
44 these differential findings may be that structural power and psychological power have different
45
46 effects. Although some suggest that the effects of structural power and psychological power are
47
48 similar (Galinsky et al., 2003; Keltner et al., 2008; Weick & Guinote, 2008), others posit that
49
50
51 these cannot be treated as interchangeable constructs (Tost, 2015). Indeed, work by Sherman et
52
53 al. (2012) suggests that structural power may enhance leader well-being because these leaders
54
55
56
have access to resources that further enhance their sense of control (such as respect, reputation,
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
money, influence), which may not be the case for psychological power. On the other hand,
4
5
6 several recent studies show that power can result in negative attitudes for the powerholder, such
7
8 as feelings of distrust (Mooijman et al., 2015), heightened sensitivity to social threats (Mead &
9
10
11
Maner, 2012), cynical attributions (Inesi et al., 2012), and unhappiness in some cultures (Datu &
12
13 Reyes, 2014; 2015), all of which may reduce powerholders’ well-being. Thus, although there is
14
15 some research that reports positive associations between power and well-being, other work (ours
16
17
18 included) suggests that there are negative associations. Future research should examine both
19
20 positive and negative effects of power on well-being to understand why and when power
21
22 promotes such effects.
23
24
25 Another limitation is that abusive leadership is a low base rate phenomenon and the range
26
27 of values in our sample was restricted. Research examining daily abusive behavior reports
28
29
similarly low frequency rates (Barnes et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2012), but the low base rate
30
31
32 implies that the effects of abusive behavior on the well-being indicators are conservative
33
34 estimates. These effects may be stronger in a between-person context or in studies with longer
35
36
37 time-horizons. Furthermore, our focus in this study was on how power-induced behaviors and
38
39 perceptions affected leaders’ own well-being. For this reason, we did not measure follower
40
41 reactions to leader psychological power, perceived incivility, or abusive behavior, a limitation
42
43
44 that may inform future research. It is possible, for example, that follower reactions such as
45
46 decreased performance, reduced respect, and interaction avoidance may reduce leaders’ own
47
48 sense of power or lead to power loss. Focusing on power loss, work by Brion and Anderson
49
50
51 (2013) shows that power leads to the illusions of alliances in groups, which then leads to power
52
53 loss. Power-induced biased perceptions, therefore, may have downstream effects on leader
54
55
56
interactions and on their ability to maintain power. Thus, in addition to studying how negative
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
reactions from followers curb leaders’ own sense of power, future research should also
4
5
6 investigate how different types of power-induced inflated expectations affect powerholders in a)
7
8 a short span of time such as the day where there are few opportunities to correct perceptions, and
9
10
11
b) longer spans of time such as months where there are more opportunities for corrective action.
12
13 Although we found significant indirect effects in our model, the effect sizes may appear
14
15 small, which raises concerns about the practical meaningfulness of our findings. While the effect
16
17
18 sizes may appear small, we believe that they are practically meaningful for several reasons. First,
19
20 Prentice and Miller (1992) argued that in experimental designs raw effect sizes are difficult to
21
22 interpret and suggested that effect sizes should be interpreted relative to the strength of the
23
24
25 manipulation and the relative difficulty of detecting an effect of that manipulation — thus effects
26
27 are particularly meaningful when detected with a small manipulation in difficult contexts. In our
28
29
study, we observed the effect of a short and simple manipulation on dependent variables
30
31
32 measured on average over 13 hours later. Second, consistent with prior studies using multilevel
33
34 structural equation models, we are reporting unstandardized results, which also makes it difficult
35
36
37 to interpret raw effect sizes. Third, our effect sizes, are comparable to other non-experimental
38
39 experience sampling studies (e.g., Liu, Song, Li, & Liao, in press; Uy, Lin, & Ilies, in press).
40
41 Building on these points, to assist in the interpretation of the magnitude of our effects, for each
42
43
44 endogenous variable in our model we used the procedure recommended by Snijders and Bosker
45
46 (1999) to calculate the pseudo-R2 (~R2) to estimate the variance explained by the model. The
47
48 model accounted for 2% of the variance in perceived incivility, 42% of the variance in abusive
49
50
51 behavior, 2% of the variance in relaxation, and 15% of the variance in need fulfillment. Taken
52
53 together, these results suggest that while the indirect effects may appear small, the model
54
55
56
explains substantial variance in each of the variables included in our model.
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Finally, we only examined agreeableness as a moderator, but other positive traits may
4
5
6 provide similar moderating effects. For example, prosocial motivation and self-monitoring may
7
8 further buffer the negative effects of power. Alternatively, traits such as narcissism and self-
9
10
11
concern may further exacerbate the effects observed here. At the within-person level,
12
13 interventions that focus on bolstering leaders’ ability to self-regulate, to empathize with their
14
15 followers, and to focus on the prosocial impact of their actions may all mitigate and even offset
16
17
18 the effects of power that we observed here. We hope that these ideas informed by this current
19
20 work will be explored by future research.
21
22 Conclusion
23
24
25 In this study, we break new ground in research on psychological power by taking an
26
27 actor-focused perspective to study the complex effects that psychological power has on actors.
28
29
We find that when leaders experience psychological power, they are likely to engage in more
30
31
32 abusive behavior and to perceive more incivility, and that perceived incivility partially mediates
33
34 the effect of psychological power on abusive behavior. Furthermore, we show that these effects
35
36
37 are not equal for all leaders, but rather the effect of power on abusive behavior is weaker for
38
39 leaders who are higher in agreeableness. Enactment of abusive behavior and perceptions of
40
41 incivility harm leaders’ own well-being as evidenced by reduced need fulfillment and ability to
42
43
44 relax at home. We hope that this work will motivate more research on the reactions to and
45
46 consequences of daily psychological power and its implications for leaders both at work and at
47
48 home.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
REFERENCES
4
5 Acton, J.E. 1907. Letter to Bishop Creighton. In J.N. Figgis & R.V. Laurence (Eds.), Historical
6 essays and studies: 503-508. London: MacMillan and Co., Limited.
7 Anderson, C., & Brion, S. 2014. Perspectives on power in organizations. Annual Review of
8 Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1): 67-97.
9 Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2006. Power, optimism, and risk‐taking. European Journal of
10
11
Social Psychology, 36(4): 511-536.
12 Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. 2012. The personal sense of power. Journal of
13 Personality, 80(2): 313-344.
14 Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
15 workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 452-471.
16
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive
17
18 supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1): 191-
19 201.
20 Aryee, S., Sun, L. Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. 2008. Abusive supervision and
21 contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating
22 role of work unit structure. Management and Organization Review, 4(3): 393-411.
23
24 Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2004. Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational Basis
25 of Performance and Weil‐Being in Two Work Settings. Journal of Applied Social
26 Psychology, 34(10): 2045-2068.
27 Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. 1995. Attractiveness of the underling: An
28 automatic power→ sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and
29
30
aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5): 768-781.
31 Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. 1996. Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of
32 trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social
33 Psychology, 71(2): 230-244.
34 Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. 2000. Studying the mind in the middle: A practical guide to
35
priming and automaticity research. In H, Reis & C, Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research
36
37 methods in social and personality psychology: 253-285. New York: Cambridge Press.
38 Barnes, C., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D., & Christian, M. 2015. You wouldn't like me when I'm
39 sleepy: leader sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Academy of
40 Management Journal, 58(5): 1419-1437.
41 Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. 2006. Conceptualizing and testing random indirect
42
43
effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and
44 recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2): 142-163.
45 Begley, T. M., Lee, C., & Hui, C. 2006. Organizational level as a moderator of the relationship
46 between justice perceptions and work‐related reactions. Journal of Organizational
47 Behavior, 27(6): 705-721.
48
Bendahan, S., Zehnder, C., Pralong, F. P., & Antonakis, J. 2015. Leader corruption depends on
49
50 power and testosterone. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2): 101-122.
51 Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. 2004. Toward an understanding of the determinants of
52 anger. Emotion, 4(2): 107-130.
53 Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. 2012. Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice
54 perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5): 994-1014.
55
56
Blau, G., & Andersson, L. 2005. Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of
57 Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4): 595-614.
58
59
60
1
2
3
Borkovec, T. D., Robinson, E., Pruzinsky, T., & DePree, J. A. 1983. Preliminary exploration of
4
5 worry: Some characteristics and processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 21(1): 9-
6 16.
7 Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. 2011. Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions
8 regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates' responses to abusive supervision. Work &
9 Stress, 25(4): 309-320.
10
11
Brinol, P., Petty, R. E., Valle, C., Rucker, D. D., & Becerra, A. 2007. The effects of message
12 recipients' power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of
13 Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6): 1040-1053.
14 Brion, S., & Anderson, C. 2013. The loss of power: How illusions of alliance contribute to
15 powerholders’ downfall. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
16
121(1): 129-139.
17
18 Brondolo, E., Masheb, R., Stores, J., Stockhammer, T., Tunick, W., Melhado, E. & Contrada, R.
19 J. 1998. Anger‐related traits and response to interpersonal conflict among New York City
20 traffic agents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(22): 2089-2118.
21 Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The
22 Leadership Quarterly, 17(6): 595-616.
23
24 Brunstein, J. C. 1993. Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of
26 Bugental, D. B. 1993. Communication in abusive relationships:" Cognitive constructions of
27 interpersonal power". The American Behavioral Scientist, 36(3): 288-308.
28 Bugental, D. B., & Lewis, J. C. 1999. The paradoxical misuse of power by those who see
29
30
themselves as powerless: How does it happen? Journal of Social Issues, 55(1): 51-64.
31 Bunk, J. A., & Magley, V. J. 2013. The role of appraisals and emotions in understanding
32 experiences of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1):
33 87-105.
34 Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. 2008. Quitting before leaving: the mediating
35 effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied
36
37 Psychology, 93(4): 912-922.
38 Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Scheuer, M. L. 2012. Supervisor workplace stress and abusive
39 supervision: The buffering effect of exercise. Journal of Business and
40 Psychology, 27(3): 271-279.
41 Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Perrewé, P. L., & Whitten, D. 2011. The fallout from abusive
42
43
supervision: An examination of subordinates and their partners. Personnel
44 Psychology, 64(4): 937-961.
45 Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. 1968. Power and influence in groups: Introduction. In D.
46 Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory, vol. 3: 215-235.
47 New York: Harper and Row.
48 Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. 2001. Relationship orientation as a moderator of the
49
50 effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2): 173-187.
51 Cheng, J.T., Tracey, J.L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. 2012. Two ways to the top:
52 Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and
53 influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (1): 103-125.
54 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation
55
56
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Collins, J. J., & Bailey, S. L. 1990. Traumatic stress disorder and violent behavior. Journal of
4
5 Traumatic Stress, 3(2): 203-220.
6 Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. 1994. Healthy mind; healthy organization—A proactive
7 approach to occupational stress. Human Relations, 47(4): 455-471.
8 Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. 2001. Incivility in the
9 workplace: incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1): 64-
10
11
80.
12 Costa, P. T., Jr & McCrae, R. R. 1985. The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
13 Psychological Assessment Resources.
14 Courtright, S., Gardner, R., Smith, T., McCormick, B., & Colbert, A. 2015. My family made me
15 do it: A cross-domain, self-regulatory perspective on antecedents of abusive supervision.
16
Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1630-1652.
17
18 Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. 1999. Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and
19 synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3): 357-384.
20 Datu, J. A. D., & Reyes, J. A. S. 2014. Why power decreases happiness in a collectivist context?
21 A Qualitative Study. Current Psychology, 1-8.
22 Datu, J. A. D., & Reyes, J. A. S. 2015. The dark side of possessing power: Power reduces
23
24
happiness in a collectivist context. Social Indicators Research, 124(3): 981-991.
25 DeCelles, K. A., DeRue, D. S., Margolis, J. D., & Ceranic, T. L. 2012. Does power corrupt or
26 enable? When and why power facilitates self-interested behavior. Journal of Applied
27 Psychology, 97(3): 681-689.
28 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
29
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4): 227-268.
30
31 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2008. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
32 motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie
33 Canadienne, 49(3): 182-185.
34 DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D. 2011. How leaders self-regulate
35 their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain.
36
37 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1): 47-65.
38 Digman, J. M. 1989. Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of
39 Personality, 57(2): 195-214.
40 Dutton, D. G., Saunders, K., Starzomski, A., & Bartholomew, K. 1994. Intimacy-anger and
41 insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Applied
42
43
Social Psychology, 24(15): 1367-1367.
44 Edwards, J.R., & Lambert, L.S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A
45 general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12:
46 1-22.
47 Elliot, A. J., Sheldon, K. M., & Church, M. A. 1997. Avoidance personal goals and subjective
48 well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(9): 915-927.
49
50 Emerson, R. M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1): 31-
51 41.
52 Fehr, E., Herz, H., Wilkening, T., 2013. The lure of authority: Motivation and incentive effects
53 of power. American Economic Review, 103 (4): 1325-1359.
54 Fiske S. 2010. Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. Fiske, G.
55
56
Lindzey, D. Gilbert D (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed.): 941-982. NY:
57 Wiley.
58
59
60
1
2
3
Foulk, T., Woolum, A., & Erez, A. 2016. Catching rudeness is like catching a cold: The
4
5 contagion effects of low-intensity negative behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
6 101(1): 50-67.
7 Fredrickson, B.L., & Joiner, T. 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional
8 well-being. Psychological Science, 13(2): 172-175.
9 Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. 2006. Recovery, well-being, and performance-related outcomes: The
10
11
role of workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4): 936-
12 945.
13 Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. 2009. Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job
14 stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management, 35(1): 94-111.
15 Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. 2003. From power to action. Journal of
16
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3): 453-466.
17
18 Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. 2006. Power and perspectives
19 not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12): 1068-1074.
20 Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. 2008.
21 Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and
22 dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6): 1450-1466.
23
24
Galinsky, A.D., Rucker, D.D., & Magee, J.C. 2015. Power: Past findings, present considerations,
25 and future directions. In M. Mikulincer, P. Shaver, & J.A. Simpson (Eds.), APA
26 Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 3: 421-460. Washington, D.C.:
27 U.S. American Psychological Association.
28 Ganster, D.C. 2005. Executive job demands: Suggestions from a stress and decision
29
making perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(3): 492-502.
30
31 Georgesen, J. C., & Harris, M. J. 1998. Why's my boss always holding me down? A meta-
32 analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Personality and Social
33 Psychology Review, 2(3): 184-195.
34 Georgesen, J. C., & Harris, M. J. 2000. The balance of power: Interpersonal consequences of
35 differential power and expectancies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10):
36
37 1239-1257.
38 Haggard, D. L., Robert, C., & Rose, A. J. 2011. Co-rumination in the workplace: Adjustment
39 trade-offs for men and women who engage in excessive discussions of workplace
40 problems. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(1): 27-40.
41 Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. 2005. Executive job demands: New insights
42
43
for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management
44 Review, 30(3): 472-491.
45 Handgraaf, M. J., Van Dijk, E., Vermunt, R. C., Wilke, H. A., & De Dreu, C. K. 2008. Less
46 power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no
47 power in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5):
48 1136-1149.
49
50 Hindess, B. 1996. Discourses of power from Hobbes to Foucault. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
51 Hirsh, J. B., Galinsky, A., & Zhong, C. 2011. Drunk, powerful, and in the dark: How general
52 processes of disinhibition produce both prosocial and antisocial behavior. Perspectives
53 on Psychological Science, 6(5): 415-427
54 Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. 2009. Abusive supervision in
55
56
advising relationships: Investigating the role of social support. Applied
57 Psychology, 58(2): 233-256.
58
59
60
1
2
3
Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M., & Gavin, M. 2000. The application of hierarchical linear modeling
4
5 to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
6 research, and methods in organizations: 467–511. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7 Hollander, E.P. 2009. Inclusive Leadership: The Essential Leader-Follower Relationship.
8 Oxon, OX: Routledge.
9 Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced
10
11
aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5): 1125-1133.
12 Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M. 2008. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for
13 Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1): 53-60.
14 Inesi, M. E., Botti, S., Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. 2011. Power and choice
15 their dynamic interplay in quenching the thirst for personal control. Psychological
16
Science, 22(8): 1042-1048.
17
18 Inesi, M. E., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Galinsky, A. D. 2012. How power corrupts relationships:
19 Cynical attributions for others' generous acts. Journal of Experimental Social
20 Psychology, 48(4): 795-803.
21 Inesi, M. E., Lee, S. Y., & Rios, K. 2014. Objects of desire: Subordinate ingratiation triggers
22 self-objectification among powerful. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53:
23
24
19-30.
25 Jensen‐Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. 2001. Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal
26 conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2): 323-362.
27 Jian, Z., Kwan, H. K., Qiu, Q., Liu, Z. Q., & Yim, F. H. K. 2012. Abusive supervision and
28 frontline employees' service performance. The Service Industries Journal, 32(5): 683-
29
30
698.
31 Johnson, R. E., Venus, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C., & Chang, C. H. 2012. Leader identity as an
32 antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and
33 abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6): 1262-1272.
34 Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. 2011. Ethical leader behavior and big
35 five factors of personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2): 349-366.
36
37 Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition.
38 Psychological Review, 110(2): 265-284.
39 Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. 2008. A reciprocal influence model of
40 social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social
41 Psychology, 40: 151-192.
42
43
Kenny, D. A., Korchmaros, J. D., & Bolger, N. 2003. Lower level mediation in multilevel
44 models. Psychological Methods, 8(2): 115-128.
45 Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Tang, R. L.
46 2012. Sins of the parents: Self-control as a buffer between supervisors' previous
47 experience of family undermining and subordinates' perceptions of abusive
48 supervision. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5): 869-882.
49
50 Kim, T. & Shapiro, D.L. 2008. Retaliation against supervisory mistreatment: Negative emotion,
51 group membership, and cross-cultural differences. International Journal of Conflict
52 Management, 19(4): 339-358.
53 Kipnis, D. 1972. Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1): 33-
54 41.
55
56
Kipnis, D. 1976. The powerholders. Oxford: U Chicago Press.
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. 2016. Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A
4
5 daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management
6 Journal, 59: 414-435.
7 Kruppa, I., Hickey, N., & Hubbard, C. 1995. The prevalence of post traumatic stress disorder in
8 a special hospital population of legal psychopaths. Psychology, Crime and Law, 2(2):
9 131-141.
10
11
La Guardia, J.G., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E., & Deci, E.L. 2000. Within-person variation in
12 security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need
13 fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3): 367-
14 384.
15 Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. 2009. How power influences moral thinking. Journal of
16
Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2): 279-289.
17
18 Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., & Stapel, D. A. 2009. Differentiating social and personal power:
19 Opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies.
20 Psychological Science, 20(12): 1543-1548.
21 Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. 2012. Power increases social
22 distance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3): 282-290.
23
24
Lanaj, K., Johnson, R.E., & Barnes, C.M. 2014. Beginning the workday yet already depleted?
25 Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Organizational Behavior and
26 Human Decision Processes, 124(1): 11-23.
27 Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Lee, S. M. 2016. Benefits of transformational behaviors for
28 Leaders: A daily investigation of leader behaviors and need fulfillment. Journal of
29
Applied Psychology, 101(2): 237-251.
30
31 LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and
32 interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4): 815-852.
33 Lian, H., Ferris, D.L., & Brown, D.J. 2012. Does taking the good with the bad make things
34 worse? How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to impact need
35 satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
36
37 Processes, 117(1): 41-52.
38 Lim, V. K., & Teo, T. S. 2009. Mind your E-manners: Impact of cyber incivility on employees’
39 work attitude and behavior. Information & Management, 46(8): 419-425.
40 Lim, S., Ilies, R., Koopman, J., Christoforou, P., & Arvey, R.D. 2016. Emotional mechanisms
41 linking incivility at work to aggression and withdrawal at home: An experience-sampling
42
43
study. Journal of Management.
44 Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. 2012. The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the
45 cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of
47 Liu, W., Song, Z., Li, X., & Liao, Z. in press. Why and when leader's affective states influence
48 employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal.
49
50 Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. 2013. Abusive supervision and employee well‐being: The
51 moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied Psychology, 62(2): 308-329.
52 Lombardi, W.J., Higgins, E.T., & Bargh, J. A. 1987. The role of consciousness in priming effects
53 on categorization assimilation versus contrast as a function of awareness of the priming
54 task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(3): 411-429.
55
56
Long, E. C., & Christian, M. S. 2015. Mindfulness buffers retaliatory responses to injustice: A
57 regulatory approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5): 1409-1422.
58
59
60
1
2
3
Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. 1999.
4
5 A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of factorial
6 validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample.
7 Personality and Individual Differences, 27(3): 405-416.
8 Magee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Gruenfeld, D. H. 2007. Power, propensity to negotiate, and
9 moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology
10
11
Bulletin, 33(2): 200-212.
12 Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Social hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and
13 status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 351-398.
14 Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. 2013. The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social
15 Psychology Review, 17(2): 158-186.
16
Major, B. 1994. From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons,
17
18 legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. Advances in Experimental Social
19 Psychology, (26): 293–355.
20 Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Menzel, A. J., & Kunstman, J. W. 2012. Dispositional anxiety
21 blocks the psychological effects of power. Personality and Social Psychology
22 Bulletin, 38(11): 1383-1395.
23
24 Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. 2012. A trickle‐
25 down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65(2): 325-357.
26 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P.T. 1987. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
27 instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1): 81-91.
28 McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its
29
30
applications. Journal of Personality, 2: 175-215.
31 Mead, N. L., & Maner, J. K. 2012. On keeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek
32 proximity to ingroup power threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
33 102(3): 576-591
34 Milgram, S. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
35
Psychology, 67(4): 371-378.
36
37 Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the
38 moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4):
39 1159-1168.
40 Mooijman, M., van Dijk, W. W., Ellemers, N., & van Dijk, E. 2015. Why leaders punish: A
41 power perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1): 75-89.
42
43
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 2014. Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
44 Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. 1987. Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome
45 dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of
47 Ng, S. H. 1980. The social psychology of power. London: Academic Press.
48
Oc, B., Bashshur, M. R., & Moore, C. 2015. Speaking truth to power: The effect of candid
49
50 feedback on how individuals with power allocate resources. Journal of Applied
51 Psychology, 100(2): 450-463.
52 Overbeck, J. R. 2010. Concepts and historical perspectives on power. In A. Guinote & T. K.
53 Vescio (Eds.), The social psychology of power: 19-45: New York: The Guilford Press.
54 Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. 2001. When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation
55
56
processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57 81(4): 549-565.
58
59
60
1
2
3
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. 2005. Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior
4
5 (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
6 Behavior, 26(7): 777-796.
7 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method
8 biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
9 remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.
10
11
Porath, C.L., & Erez, A. 2009. Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces onlookers’
12 performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human
13 Decision Processes, 109(1): 29-44.
14 Porath, C. L., MacInnis, D., & Folkes, V. 2010. Witnessing incivility among employees: Effects
15 on consumer anger and negative inferences about companies. Journal of Consumer
16
Research, 37(2): 292-303.
17
18 Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. 2010. The cost of bad behavior. Organizational Dynamics,
19 39(1): 64-71.
20 Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J., & Bauer, D.J. 2006. Computational tools for probing interactions in
21 multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of
22 Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 3(4): 437-448.
23
24
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
25 Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 185-227.
26 Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. 2010. A general multilevel SEM framework for
27 assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3): 209-233.
28 Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. 2011. Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative
29
strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2): 93-115.
30
31 Prentice, D.A., & Miller, D.T. 1992. When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin,
32 112(1): 160-164.
33 Prislin, R., Sawicki, V., & Williams, K. 2011. New majorities’ abuse of power Effects of
34 perceived control and social support. In A. Guinote, & T. K. Vescio (Eds.), Group
35 processes & intergroup relations, 14(4): 489-504.
36
37 Rafaeli, A., Erez, A., Ravid, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Treister, D. E., & Scheyer, R. 2012. When
38 customers exhibit verbal aggression, employees pay cognitive costs. Journal of Applied
39 Psychology, 97(5): 931-950.
40 Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. Daily well-being: The
41 role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology
42
43
Bulletin, 26(4): 419-435.
44 Rosen, C.C., Koopman, J., Gabriel, A.S., & Johnson, R.E. 2016. Who strikes back: A daily
45 investigation of when and why incivility begets incivility. Journal of Applied
46 Psychology.
47 Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. 2008. Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory
48 consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2): 257-267.
49
50 Rucker, D. D., Dubois, D., & Galinsky, A. D. 2011. Generous paupers and stingy princes: Power
51 drives consumer spending on self versus others. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6):
52 1015-1029.
53 Ryan, R. M. 1995. Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of
54 Personality, 63(3): 397-427.
55
56
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. 1997. On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a
57 dynamic reflection of well‐being. Journal of Personality, 65(3): 529-565.
58
59
60
1
2
3
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. 2001. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment
4
5 structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4): 507-514.
6 Saucier, G. 1994. Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers.
7 Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3): 506-516.
8 Sawaoka, T., Hughes, B. L., & Ambady, N. 2015. Power heightens sensitivity to unfairness
9 against the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8): 1023-1035.
10
11
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez A. 2016. Workplace incivility: A review of the literature
12 and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37: S57-S88.
13 Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. 1997. Trait self and true self: Cross-
14 role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological
15 authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
16
73(6): 1380-1393.
17
18 Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. 1999. Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-
19 being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
20 76(3): 482-497.
21 Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. 2006. It's not just the amount that counts: Balanced need
22 satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
23
24
91(2): 331-341.
25 Sherman, G. D., Lee, J. J., Cuddy, A. J., Renshon, J., Oveis, C., Gross, J. J., & Lerner, J. S. 2012.
26 Leadership is associated with lower levels of stress. Proceedings of the National
27 Academy of Sciences, 109(44): 17903-17907.
28 Shi, J., Johnson, R.E., Liu, Y, & Wang, M. 2012. Linking subordinate political skill to supervisor
29
dependence and reward recommendations: A moderated mediation model. Journal of
30
31 Applied Psychology, 98(2): 374-384.
32 Smith, P.K., & Overbeck, J.R. 2014. The leaders’ rosy halo: Why do we give powerholders the
33 benefit of the doubt. In J.W. van Prooijen & A.M. Lange (Eds.), Power, politics, and
34 paranoia: Why people are suspicious about their leaders: 53-72. Cambridge, UK:
35 Cambridge University Press.
36
37 Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. 2006. You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees:
38 power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social
39 Psychology, 90(4): 578-596.
40 Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. 1999. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and applied
41 multilevel analysis. Lindon: Sage.
42
43
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. 2007. The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and
44 validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of
45 Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3): 204-221.
46 Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Binnewies, C., & Scholl, A. 2008. Being engaged at work and
47 detached at home: A week-level study on work engagement, psychological detachment,
48 and affect. Work & Stress, 22(3): 257-276.
49
50 Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. 2001. Well‐being and occupational health in the 21st
51 century workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4):
52 489-509.
53 Steiner, H., Garcia, I. G., & Matthews, Z. 1997. Posttraumatic stress disorder in incarcerated
54 juvenile delinquents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
55
56
Psychiatry, 36(3): 357-365.
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Stevens, L. E., & Fiske, S. T. 2000. Motivated impressions of a powerholder: Accuracy under
4
5 task dependency and misperception under evaluation dependency. Personality and Social
6 Psychology Bulletin, 26(8): 907-922.
7 Stone, A. A., Kennedy-Moore, E., & Neale, J. M. 1995. Association between daily coping and
8 end-of-day mood. Health Psychology, 14(4): 341-349.
9 Sturm, R. E., & Antonakis, J. 2015. Interpersonal Power A Review, Critique, and Research
10
11
Agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1): 136-163.
12 Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
13 Journal, 43(2): 178-190.
14 Tepper, B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research
15 agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3): 261-289.
16
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. 2006. Procedural injustice, victim
17
18 precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1): 101-123.
19 Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. 2007. Abusive supervision, upward
20 maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Academy of
22 Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. 2011. Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor
23
24
perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate
25 performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 279-294.
26 Tofighi, D., West, S. G., & MacKinnon, D. P. 2013. Multilevel mediation analysis: The effects
27 of omitted variables in the 1–1–1 model. British Journal of Mathematical and
28 Statistical Psychology, 66(2): 290-307.
29
Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. 2013. When power makes others speechless: The negative
30
31 impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5):
32 1465-1486.
33 Tost, L. P. 2015. When, why, and how do powerholders “feel the power”? Examining the links
34 between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power
35 and responsibility. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35: 29-56.
36
37 Tost, L. P., Wade-Benzoni, K. A., & Johnson, H. H. 2015. Noblesse oblige emerges (with time):
38 Power enhances intergenerational beneficence. Organizational Behavior and Human
39 Decision Processes, 128: 61-73.
40 Uy, M. A., Lin, K. J., & Ilies, R. in press. Restorative interactions at work: Is giving more
41 beneficial than receiving. Academy of Management Journal.
42
43
Uysal, A., Lin, H.L., & Knee, C.R. 2010. The role of need satisfaction in self-concealment and
44 well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36:187-199.
45 Van der Klink, J. J., Blonk, R. W., Schene, A. H., & Van Dijk, F. J. 2001. The benefits of
46 interventions for work-related stress. American Journal of Public Health, 91(2): 270-
47 276.
48 van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van Der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. 2008.
49
50 Power, distress, and compassion turning a blind eye to the suffering of
51 others. Psychological Science, 19(12): 1315-1322.
52 Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice
53 behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety.
54 Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5): 1275-1286.
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
Wang, M., & Chan, D. 2011. Mixture latent Markov modeling: Identifying and predicting
4
5 unobserved heterogeneity in longitudinal qualitative status change. Organizational
6 Research Methods, 14(3): 411-431.
7 Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. 2006. Individual differences in servant
8 leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership & Organization
9 Development Journal, 27(8): 700-716.
10
11
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of
12 positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
13 Psychology, 54(6): 1063-1070.
14 Weick, M., & Guinote, A. 2008. When subjective experiences matter: power increases reliance
15 on the ease of retrieval. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6): 956-970.
16
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. 2010. When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial
17
18 behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of
20 Welsh, D. T., & Ordóñez, L. D. 2014. Conscience without cognition: The effects of
21 subconscious priming on ethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3):
22 723-742.
23
24
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
25 predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,
26 17(3): 601-617.
27 Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. 2012. Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The
28 mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4): 531-543.
29
Zimbardo, P. G. 1973. On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With
30
31 special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition, 2(2): 243-256.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
49
1
2
3
TABLE 1
4
5
6 Within and Between Person Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
7
8
9
10 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
11
12
13
14 1. Psychological Power .50 .14 -- .13 .06 .02 -.06 -.10 -.01 .29**
15
16 2. Perceived Incivility 1.46 .51 .08* -- .31** -.48** -.08 -.19 .15 -.30**
17
18 3. Abusive Behavior 1.08 .14 .08* .06 -- -.19 .09 -.05 .06 -.16
19
20
21 4. Need Fulfillment 3.77 .56 .03 -.09* -.10* -- .24* .49** -.29** .50**
22
23 5. Relaxation 3.22 .82 .08 .08 -.08 .20** -- .02 -.17 .06
24
25
26
6. Positive Affect 2.97 .86 .03 -.06 -.01 .18** -.06 -- -.01 .44**
27
28 7. Negative Affect 1.25 .35 -.08* .16** .08* -.14** .00 -.28** -- -.13
29
30 8. Task Performance 3.97 .48 -.01 -.02 .03 .22** .02 .20** -.13** --
31
32
33 9. Agreeableness 3.90 .54 -.11 -.11 -.21* .20* .02 .17 .01 .14
34
35
36
Notes: Variables 1 through 8 are within-individual (level 1) variables. Variable 9 is a between-individual (level 2) variable. Except for
37 agreeableness, within individual correlations are shown below the diagonal, and are based on within-individual scores (N = 832).
38 Bivariate correlations for agreeableness are based on between-individual scores. Between-individual correlations are shown above the
39 diagonal and are based on between-individual scores (N = 108). Means and standard deviations are based on between-individual
40 scores. * p < .05; ** p <. 01.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
50
1
2
3
TABLE 2
4
5
6 Multilevel Path Model Results
7
8
9
Perceived Incivility Abusive Behavior Need Fulfillment Relaxation
10
11 B SE t B SE t B SE t B SE t
12
13
14 Intercept (b00) 1.42 .05 29.64** 1.01 .02 42.88** 4.11 .14 29.72** 3.28 .18 18.62**
15
16
17
Positive Affect (b10) -.02 .03 .56 .001 .01 .82 .07 .04 1.71 -.10 .08 1.21
18
19 Negative Affect (b20) .22 .08 2.91** .06 .02 3.20** -.08 .07 1.11 -.03 .10 .34
20
21 Task Performance (b30) .00 .05 .05 .01 .01 .69 .15 .05 2.91** .07 .09 .84
22
23
24 Psychological Power(b40) .10 .03 3.26** .04 .02 2.05* .04 .04 1.00 .12 .09 1.35
25
26 Perceived Incivility (b50) .03 .02 1.97* -.10 .05 2.17* .08 .08 1.03
27
28 Abusive Behavior (b60) -.19 .07 2.68** -.22 .09 2.59*
29
30
31 Notes: N (level 1) = 832; N (level 2) = 108. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Level 1 predictors were group mean centered.
32
*p < .05; ** p < .01.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
51
1
2
3
TABLE 3
4
5
6 Multilevel Path Model Results for the Moderating Effects of Agreeableness
7
8
9
Perceived Incivility Abusive Behavior Need Fulfillment Relaxation
10
11 B SE t B SE t B SE t B SE t
12
13
14
15 Intercept (b00) 1.42 .05 30.04** 1.03 .03 33.29** 4.11 .14 29.92** 3.28 .18 18.64**
16 Level 2 Predictor
17
18 Agreeableness (b01) -.13 .11 1.21 -.02 .02 1.40
19
20 Level 1 Predictors
21
22 Positive Affect (b10) -.02 .03 .55 .01 .01 .76 .07 .04 1.71 -.10 .08 1.21
23
24
Negative Affect (b20) .22 .08 2.90** .06 .02 3.21** -.08 .07 1.11 -.03 .10 .34
25 Task Performance (b30) .00 .05 .07 .01 .01 .72 .15 .05 2.91** .07 .09 .84
26
27 Psychological Power (b40) .10 .03 3.29** .04 .02 2.06* .04 .04 1.00 .12 .09 1.35
28
29 Perceived Incivility(b50) .02 .02 .97 -.10 .05 -2.17* .08 .08 1.03
30
31 Abusive Behavior (b60) -.19 .07 2.70** -.22 .09 2.60**
32
33 Cross-Level Moderators
34
35 Power X Agreeableness (b41) .05 .06 .86 -.05 .02 1.98*
36
37
38
Notes: N (Level 1) = 832; N (Level 2) = 108. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Level 1 predictors were group mean centered.
39 Level 2 predictors were grand mean centered.
40 * p < .05; ** p < .01
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
52
1
2
3
FIGURE 1
4
5
6 Conceptual Model
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
53
1
2
3
FIGURE 2
4
5
6 Moderating Effect of Agreeableness on the Relationship between Psychological Power and Abusive Behavior
7
8
9 1.12
10
11
12
13 1.1
14
15
16
17 1.08
Abusive Behavior
18
19
20 Low Agreeableness
21 1.06
Mean Agreeableness
22
23 High Agreeableness
24
25 1.04
26
27
28
29 1.02
30
31
32
33 1
34 No Power Power
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
54
1
2
3
Trevor A. Foulk (trevor.a.foulk@gmail.com) is an assistant professor in the Management &
4
5 Organization department at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of
6 Maryland. He received his PhD from the University of Florida. His research focuses on
7 workplace incivility and rudeness, power dynamics, and impression management behaviors.
8
9 Klodiana Lanaj (klodiana.lanaj@warrington.ufl.edu) is an assistant professor of management in
10 the Warrington College of Business at University of Florida. She received her PhD from
11 Michigan State University. Her research focuses on leadership, self-regulation, and team
12 processes and performance.
13
14 Min-Hsuan Tu (min-hsuan.tu@warrington.ufl.edu) is a PhD student in the Warrington College
15
of Business at the University of Florida. Her current research interests include leadership,
16
17 power/influence and emotion.
18
19
Amir Erez (amir.erez@warrington.ufl.edu) is the W. A. McGriff III Professor of Management
20 in the Warrington College of Business at the University of Florida. He received his PhD from
21 Cornell University. His research examines the cognitive processes by which emotions, moods,
22 and personality dispositions influence motivation and performance.
23
24 Lindy Archambeau (lindy.archambeau@warrington.ufl.edu) is a lecturer in the Warrington
25 College of Business at University of Florida. She received her PhD from University of
26 California at Berkeley. Her research interest focuses on leadership, resource-based view of
27
entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Amj 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amj 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amj 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Journal

HEAVY IS THE HEAD THAT WEARS THE CROWN: AN ACTOR–

Journal: Academy of Management Journal

Manuscript Type: Revision

Field experiment < Quantitative Orientation < Research Methods, Multi-

Recognizing that powerholders operate in dynamic relational and

You might also like