Holding onto power: effects of powerholders' positional instability and expectancies on interactions with subordinates

Abstract

This study explores the effects of power, positional threat, and expectancies on interactions between powerholders and subordinates. Two hundred and forty-two participants were randomly assigned to power role (boss or employee). Bosses were further randomly assigned to levels of positional threat (power role secure or insecure) and expectancy regarding subordinates' problem-solving ability (negative or positive). Evidence for a self-fulfilling prophecy was obtained, such that dyads where bosses held negative expectancies of their subordinates rated the subordinate and experience most negatively and awarded less potential prize money to the subordinates. Expectancy interacted with positional threat in a consistent manner such that the most negative effects were obtained for dyads where bosses were both positionally threatened and held negative expectancies of subordinates. Implications for theories of power are discussed.

Self-Esteem and Achievement Motivation as Predictors of Perceived Sense of Competence among Workers in a Nigerian University Teaching Hospital

“…These findings are consistent with those of Chen et al (2001) that found that having high self-esteem increases the likelihood of believing that individuals have the prerequisite knowledge of the work or task at hand as well as the skills to perform effectively and with confidence. The finding also buttress earlier findings by Georgesen and Harris (2006), Morrison et al (2009), which showed that need for achievement influence perceived sense of competence; employees with high achievement motivation perceive themselves as more competent on the job. Additionally, when teacher perceived sense of competence was examined by Scott and Dinham (2003), they found that it was influenced by need for achievement and personal efficacy.…”

“…Therefore, individual difference in achievement motivation may constitute an important explanation for perceived sense of competence among health workers. A number of empirical studies show that the need for achievement appears to influence perceived sense of competence; employees with high achievement motivation perceive themselves as more competent on the job (Georgesen & Harris, 2006;Morrison, Fast, & Ybarra, 2009). Additionally, when teacher perceived sense of competence was examined by Scott and Dinham (2003), they found that it was influenced by need for achievement and personal efficacy.…”

Legitimacy Crisis? Behavioral Approach and Inhibition When Power Differences are Left Unexplained

“…One method of maintaining power in the face of threat is to assert one's dominance and otherwise demonstrate that one is indeed powerful and suited for a powerful position. Georgesen and Harris (2006) found that high-power participants whose position was unstable asserted more strongly that they deserved to be boss and reported stronger intentions to exert control. Similarly, parents whose power over a child is threatened or otherwise made insecure tend to assert their control through aggressive acts (Bugental & Happaney, 2000).…”

When leaders choose to be fair: Follower belongingness needs and leader empathy influences leaders' adherence to procedural fairness rules

“…However, there exists only limited knowledge on what makes leaders behave in ways that are more or less fair to followers, and often these findings have not been framed in terms of procedural fairness. For example, Maner and Mead (2010) identified a number of factors that determine whether leaders will act selfishly or choose a course of action that benefits the groups' goals; whereas Georgesen and Harris (2006) demonstrated that leaders' who feel safe in their power position welcome contributions from their subordinates and award them more prize money Leaders' procedural fairness and follower need to belong 6 than leaders who feel themselves threatened. However, the existing literature that focuses explicitly on procedural justice has been reactive rather than pro-active to a large extent (Greenberg, 1987), focusing on the 'recipient' of (un)fair treatment, rather than examining antecedents of leader behavior (Tyler & Smith, 1998).…”