Oklahoma Secretary of State - Home · 2020. 4. 2. · Oklahoma Secretary of State - Home
Rebecca L. Greenbaum Oklahoma State University Hunter Harris Oklahoma State University When Leaders...
-
Upload
giselle-crosier -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Rebecca L. Greenbaum Oklahoma State University Hunter Harris Oklahoma State University When Leaders...
Rebecca L. Greenbaum
Oklahoma State University
Hunter Harris
Oklahoma State University
When Leaders Fail to “Walk the Talk:” An Examination of Perceptions of Leader
Hypocrisy
Mary Bardes
Drexel University
Ronald F. Piccolo
Rollins College
1
Perceptions of Leader HypocrisyLeadership’s dark side (Popper, 2001; Tierney &
Tepper, 2007)
Definition (antonym of behavioral integrity; Simons, 2002)The leader expresses certain values, but fails to uphold
those values as demonstrated by his/her attitudes and behaviors (Cha & Edmondson, 2006; Treviño, Hartman, & Brown, 2000).
Employees’ perceptions of leaders’ word-deed misalignment (Brunnson, 1989; Simons, 2002).
Why study leader hypocrisy?Subordinates pay attention to salient values (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978).
2
Research Question
?Perceptio
ns of Leader
Hypocrisy
Turnover Intention
s
A Hypocrisy Condition: Word-
deed Misalignment
A Hypocrisy-driven Outcome(Simons et al.,
2007)
3
Research Question
Supervisor Undermini
ng
Perceptions of
Leader Hypocrisy
Turnover Intention
s
A Hypocrisy Condition: Word-
deed Misalignment
Control Variables:Psychological Contract Breach
Trust in Supervisor
Interpersonal Justice Expectatio
n
4
A Hypocrisy ConditionSupervisor Undermining
“[Supervisory] behavior that is intended to hinder, over time, the ability [of subordinates] to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputations” (Duffy et al., 2002; p. 332).
Interpersonal Justice (IPJ) (Bies, 2005; Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1993)Respectful and socially sensitive treatment
IPJ ExpectationSubordinates perceive that their supervisors expect
them to treat others with interpersonal justice.
5
MisalignmentSupervisor Undermining
A failure to show subordinates dignity/respectBelittling subordinates ideas, making them feel incompetent,
spreading rumors about them, talking badly about them (Duffy et al., 2002)
The presence of IPJ expectation adds insult to injury.Subordinates pay attention to salient expectations
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).It’s clearer to subordinates that supervisors do not
“walk the talk.”
“Not only does my supervisor treat me poorly, but he/she is a hypocrite!”
6
Hypothesis 1:The interactive effect of supervisor undermining and interpersonal justice expectation is related to perceptions of leader hypocrisy such that the relationship between supervisor undermining and perceptions of leader hypocrisy is stronger when interpersonal justice expectation is high as opposed to low.
Supervisor Undermini
ng
Interpersonal Justice Expectatio
nPerceptio
ns of Leader
Hypocrisy7
Why do subordinates care?A theoretical explanation to account for reactions
to leader hypocrisy (Gosling & Huang, 2009)
Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) is used to account for people’s reactions to their own hypocrisy (Stone & Cooper, 2001).
Employees may also experience psychological discomfort (i.e., dissonance) in response to leader hypocrisy.
People derive a part of their self-concepts from their work groups (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). People care about the hypocrisy of work group members (McKimmie et al., 2003).
Leaders serve as exemplars of group conduct (Brown et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 2009).8
Dissonance Reduction: Turnover IntentionsEmployees experience dissonance arousal
in response to leader hypocrisy.
An association with hypocritical leaders challenges employees’ understanding of themselves as moral people (McKimmie et al., 2003; Thibodeau & Aronson, 1992).
Employees are motivated to reduce dissonance (Festinger, 1957).
They may psychologically distance themselves from the source of hypocrisy by intending to leave the organization.
9
Hypothesis 2:Perceptions of leader hypocrisy are positively related to turnover intentions.
Perceptions of
Leader Hypocrisy
Turnover Intention
s
10
Hypothesis 3:Perceptions of leader hypocrisy mediates the relationship between the interactive effect of supervisor undermining and interpersonal justice expectation on turnover intentions.
Supervisor Undermini
ng
Perceptions of
Leader Hypocrisy
Turnover Intention
s
Interpersonal Justice Expectatio
n
11
Alternative Explanations (controls)
Related Constructs (Simons, 2002; Simons et al., 2007)
Psychological Contract Breach (Rousseau, 1989; Morrison & Robinson, 1997)
Trust (Mayer et al., 1995)
12
Method: Participants and ProcedureBusiness administration students recruited
533 working adults to participate in the surveyUsable data from 312 participants (59%
response rate)Average age = 26 years58% CaucasianAverage organizational tenure = 3 years54% working full-time, 46% part-time
13
Method: MeasuresAll measures were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Supervisor Undermining (13 items; Duffy et al., 2002; α = .97)
Does your supervisor “talk bad about you behind your back?”
Interpersonal Justice Expectation (4 items; adapted from Colquitt, 2001; α = .96)
My supervisor expects me to “treat other people with respect.”
Perceptions of Leader Hypocrisy (4 items; Dineen et al., 2006; α = .92)
“I wish my supervisor would practice what he/she preaches more often.”
14
Method: Measures (continued)Turnover Intentions (4 items; adapted from Tett &
Meyer, 1993; α = .95)“I am thinking about leaving this organization.”
Controls Variables:
Psychological Contract Breach (5 items; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; α = .91)“My employer has broken many of its promises to me
even though I’ve upheld my side of the deal.”
Trust in Supervisor (3 items; Conger et al., 2000; α = .82)“I can count on my supervisor to be trustworthy.”
15
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
16
Results (Preacher et al., 2007)Hypothesis 1 was supported.
B = .10, p < .05
Simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West, 1991):One standard deviation below the mean: t
=2.04, p < .05One standard deviation above the mean: t =
4.17, p < .001
17
Hypothesis 1 Interaction
18
Results (continued)Hypothesis 2 was supported.
B = .22, p < .01
Moderated mediation results (Preacher et al., 2007) provided support for Hypothesis 3.-1 SD (4.76), B = .02, ns SD (6.05), B = .06, p < .05+1 SD (7.35), B = .09, p < .05
Bootstrap indirect effects-1 SD (4.76), B = .04, nsSD (6.05), B = .07, p < .10+1 SD (7.35), B = .10, p < .05
19
Indirect Effects at Levels of the Moderator
20
DiscussionOur results suggest that the simultaneous
presence of supervisor undermining and interpersonal justice expectation leads to perceptions of leader hypocrisy, which then leads to turnover intentions.
Our result hold even when controlling for alternative explanations (i.e., psychological contract breach, trust in supervisor).
21
Discussion (continued)Theoretical Implications
Leader hypocrisy may be even worse than other forms of bad leadership.
Employees’ reactions may also be driven by implicit expectations derived from societal norms concerning fair behavior (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Folger et al., 2005).
Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) may explain employees’ desire to leave the organization. By controlling for alternative explanations, our
results suggest that perceptions of leader hypocrisy is capturing something unique.
22
Discussion (continued)Practical Implications
Leaders should be cognizant of instances where their attitudes/behavior may not align with expressed expectations.
Limitations and Future DirectionsCommon-method variance (Podsakoff et al.,
2003; Spector, 2006) and cross-sectional dataWe also tested our model using a scenario-based
experiment.
Measurement of dissonance arousalThe severity of hypocrisy
23
Thank you!
Any questions?
24