You are on page 1of 15

Petty Tyranny in Organizations:

A Preliminary Examination of Antecedents


and Consequences
Blake E. Ashforth
Arizona State University

Abstract Rksume
Petty tyranny is defined as the tendency to lord ones On entend par petite tyrannie la tendance exercer
power over others. A model of the individual and situa- une domination sur les autres. Larticle prksente un
tional antecedents of petty tyranny in organizations and mod& des antkckdents individuels et situationnels de la
the effects of tyranny on subordinates is presented. The petite tyrannie dans les organisations et des effects de la
model is assessed via 63 sets of respondents, each con- tyrannie sur les subordonnks. Le mod2le est testk a par-
sisting of one manager and two subordinates, plus 25 tir de 63 groupes complets de rkpondants, composks
partial sets. The hypothesized effects are generally sup- chacun dun chef de service et de deux subordonnks, et
ported, but not the hypothesized antecedents. It is specu- de 25 groupes partiels. Les hypothkses likes aux effets de
lated that petty tyranny represents a relatively rare la tyrannie sont gknneralement verij5ees contrairement a
gestalt, that is, an integrated and resilient cluster of celles des antkckdents. Lauteur sugg2re que la petite
antecedents, leader behaviours, and effects on subordi- tyrannie reprksente une gestalt relativement rare,
nates. c est-a-direun ensemble intkgrk duntkckdents, de com-
portements de leader et deffets sur les subordonnks.

Consider the following: [Harry Figgie] can be the nicest fellow in the world
one day and totally abusive the next: Men running
In the three months since [the new owner of the phar- $100 million divisions would come into my office
macy] has been in charge [he] has made it clear that and ask if it was safe to see Harry that day
he is at liberty to fire employees at will ... change ... Figgie takes no prisoners when it comes to an
their positions, decrease their bonus percentages, and insult. Hell call anyone a horses ass anywhere ._.
refuse time-off and vacation choices. Furthermore, Headquarters was like a tomb. People were scared.
he has established an authoritarian work structure Harry chewed me out again and again and again.
characterized by distrust, cut-backs on many items Every day hed work me over. I lost 40 pounds
deemed essential to work comfort, disrespect, rigidi- putting in six days a week until ten oclock every
ty and poor-to-no communication ... [He regards night, never sure Id have a job in the morning.
employees as] potential thieves and squanderers of (Nulty, 1989, p. 41)
work time. As a result, he consistently spies on
employees ... These changes have been so pervasive Petty tyrant is a colloquial term that is often used
that ... the employees no longer refer to the [pharma- to describe such managers. It suggests someone who
cy] as a small family but as the third Reich with
[him] in the role of Hitler. (Giarrusso, 1990, pp. 5-6) uses their power and authority oppressively, capricious-
ly, and perhaps vindictively. It suggests, in short, some-
one who lords their power over others.
The management, social psychological, and politi-
This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and
cal science literatures have yielded constructs similar to
Humanities Research Council of Canada (#410-88.0298). The data this notion of petty tyranny, such as the authoritarian per-
were collected while the author was at Concordia University. The sonality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, &
author is grateful to Yongqing Fang and Jia-Lin Xie for assistance with Sanford, 1950), bureaupathic individual (Thompson,
the data analysis; and to Gary Johns, Bruce Prince, David Waldman, 1961), and dictator (Rubin, 1987). Recurring themes
and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Address all correspondence to Blake E. Ashforth, Department of
include close and coercive supervision, an emphasis on
Management, College of Business, Arizona State University, Main authority and status differences, arbitrary actions, severe
Campus, P.O. Box 874006, Tempe, AZ 85287-4006, USA. and punitive treatment of subordinates, and deterrence of

Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration


Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
0 ASAC 1997 126 4 ( 2 ) . 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS ASHFORTH

subordinates initiative and dissent. These themes sug- petty tyranny maintains that certain individual predispo-
gest a tendency to overcontrol others and to treat them in sitions interact with certain situational facilitators to fos-
an arbitrary, uncaring, and punitive manner. However, ter tyranny. The individual predispositions revolve large-
these literatures tend to be anecdotal and impressionistic. ly around a managers habitual construction of the work
In an attempt to provide a more coherent framework context (that is, enduring beliefs about the organization,
for this eclectic literature and a basis for survey research, subordinates, and self), coupled with his or her habitual
I recently developed a model of petty tyranny in organi- action tendencies (that is, enduring ways of approaching
zations (Ashforth, 1994). As reproduced in Figure 1, the situations). More specifically, beliefs about the organiza-
model: (a) described petty tyranny in specific behaviour- tion are represented by bureaucratic orientation, beliefs
a1 terms, (b) proposed a set of antecedents of tyranny in about subordinates by Theory X, beliefs about the self by
organizations, and (c) proposed a set of effects that self-esteem, and preferences for action by directiveness
tyrannical management has on subordinates. and tolerance for ambiguity.
Consistent with the themes noted above, empirical The situational facilitators were selected to span the
work summarized in Ashforth (1994) (see Measures, macro- and micro-levels that constitute an organization
below, for more detail) suggests that the construct of petty (House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995). More specif-
tyranny is comprised of six major sets of behaviours: (a) ically, the macro-level is represented by institutionalized
arbitrariness and self-aggrandizement (e.g., Uses authori- values and norms, and the micro-level by power and
ty or position for personal gain, Administers organiza- stressors. These particular operationalizations of the
tional policies unfairly), (b) belittling subordinates (e.g., individual and situational factors, however, are not
Belittles or embarrasses subordinates, Criticizes subor- intended to be exhaustive.
dinates in front of others), (c) lack of consideration (e.g., The first set of individual-situational interactions
Is friendly and approachable [reversed], Looks out for involves bureaucratic orientation and Theory X beliefs in
the personal welfare of group members [reversed]), (d) a conjunction with institutionalized values and norms.
forcing style of conflict resolution (e.g., Forces accep- Regarding bureaucratic orientation, Mertons (1 968)
tance of his or her point of view, Demands to get his or bureaucratic personality and Thompsons ( 1 961)
her way), (e) discouraging initiative (e.g., Encourages bureaupathic pattern suggest a person who acts in an
subordinates to participate in important decisions overbearing, impersonal, and inflexible manner, and who
[reversed], Trains subordinates to take on more authority insists upon the rights of authority. This stance is captured
[reversed]), and (f) noncontingent punishment (e.g., My by Gordons (1973) measure of bureaucratic orientation
supervisor is often displeased with my work for no appar- (see Allinson, 1984, for a review). High scores reflect a
ent reason, I frequently am reprimanded by my supervi- willingness to comply with authority, a preference for
sor without knowing why). The adjective petty was impersonal and formal relationships with others on the
added to tyrant to emphasize the theme of arbitrariness job, a desire for strict adherence to rules and procedures,
and small-mindedness that pervades these behaviours. and a need to identify with the organization and conform
The purpose of the present study is to build on to norms. Regarding Theory X beliefs, McGregor (1 960)
Ashforth (1994) by providing an empirical assessment of argues that many managers believe that the average person
the validity of the conceptual model presented in Figure dislikes work, lacks ambition, avoids responsibility,
1, utilizing the above conceptualization of petty tyrant prefers direction, and is resistant to change. McGregor
behaviours. Hypotheses regarding the antecedents and further argues that managers holding these Theory X
effects of petty tyranny are presented below. To fore- beliefs often utilize a close and coercive leadership style.
shadow the findings, the paper concludes by speculating Bureaucratic orientation and Theory X beliefs are
that petty tyranny may constitute a relatively rare gestalt, particularly likely to manifest themselves in tyrannical
that is, an integrated and coherent cluster of individual behaviour in organizational settings that at least tacitly
predispositions, situational facilitators, leader behav- condone such behaviour. In particular, machine organi-
iours, and effects on subordinates. zations (Mintzberg, 1989) such as auto manufacturers
and post offices frequently stress efficient mass produc-
tion and thus emphasize compliance with centralized
Antecedents of Petty Tyranny decisions and standardized and formalized tasks.
Accordingly, managers often display close, rule-minded
The growing literature on interactionism suggests supervision (Izraeli, 1975). Similarly, Kets de Vries
that no individual or situational factor alone is generally (1989) argues that the high centralization characteristic
sufficient to sustain ongoing organizational behaviour of many entrepreneurial organizations (Mintzberg,
(Chatman, 1989): behaviour is a function of specific 1989) often reflects the entrepreneurs strong need for
people in specific contexts. Accordingly, the model of independence and control and his or her distrust of oth-

Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration


Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
127 14(2), 126-140
-
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS ... ASHFORTH

Figure 1.
Proposed Antecedents and Effects of Petty Tyranny.

ANTECEDENTS
Individual predispositions Situational facilitators I I I

PETTY TYRANNY
I I EFFECTS ON
SUBORDINATES

i i
Beliefs about the organization Macro-level factors
Bureaucraticorientation Institutionalizedvalues
and norms Arbitrarinessand Low leader endorsement
Beliefs about subordinates self-aggrandizement High fkbation, sness,
Theory X - Belinlig subordinates and reactance

Beliefs about the self Micro-level factors


< Lack of considemtion
Forcingconflictresolution
High helplesmessand
work alienation
Self-esteem Power Dimulaginginitiaiim Low self-esteemand
Noncontingent punishment pelfOlltlaIlW
Micro-level factors Low work-unitcohesiveness
Directiveness Stressors

I I I I

Note. The three ellipses reflect potential configurations of individual predispositions and situational facilitators that are likely to predict petty tyranny.
It is not argued that tyrannical behaviour fully mediates the impact of the proposed antecedents on the proposed effects. It is recognized that certain
antecedents may affect certain effects directly or through additional mediators.

ers. Thus, the institutionalized values and norms inherent less inclined are subordinates to openly question the man-
in many centralized organizations may facilitate the ager. Thus, the manager comes to believe that he or she is
emergence of tyranny. In support, Ashforth (1987) found infallible and should not be bound by the same con-
that tyrannical managers (i.e., those falling more than straints as others, and that subordinates must be closely
one SD above the mean on the measure described later) supervised. Considering the arguments for low and high
were overrepresented in machine and entrepreneurial power simultaneously, it thus appears that petty tyranny
organizations and underrepresented in Mintzbergs is associated with power in a U-shaped function, such
(1989) more decentralized professional and innova- that tyranny will tend to be lowest for moderate power.
tive organizations. Hence: However, this function may only apply to managers
with relatively low self-esteem. McClellands (1985)
H1: Managers beliefs will interact with institution- research indicates that individuals differ in the degree to
alized values and norms such that tyrannical behav- which they are psychologically constrained from exer-
iour will be highest for: (a) bureaucratically oriented
managers in centralized operations and (b) Theory X
cising power in socially undesirable ways. Individuals
oriented managers in centralized operations. with low power inhibition are more likely to act tyran-
nically. Self-esteem may be one variable that affects this
The second individual-situational interaction felt inhibition. Individuals with low self-esteem tend to
involves self-esteem and managerial power. Regarding lack confidence in their ability to influence others
power, Kipnis (1976) and Kanter (1977) argue that indi- (Kipnis, 1976). Accordingly, they may feel particularly
viduals who are relatively powerless often lord what little threatened by relatively low power and may feel particu-
power they do have and put psychological distance larly attracted to the seductive qualities of relatively high
between themselves and others dependent on them. This power. Thus, whether they have high or low power, they
enhances self-perceptions of superiority and legitimates may feel less constrained in their use of it and be more
tight control. Kipnis (1976) further argues that the rela- likely to display tyrannical behaviour. Hence:
tively powerful also often come to lord their power. The
greater the power differential, the more inclined is a man- H2: Managers beliefs will interact with power such
that: (a) for managers with relatively low self-
ager to attribute subordinates performance to managerial esteem, tyrannical behaviour will be associated with
control rather than to the subordinates themselves and the power in a U-shaped function, and (b) for managers
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
128 14(2), 126-140
-
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS ASHFORTH

with relatively high self-esteem, tyrannical behav- trariness and noncontingent punishment may impair
iour will not be associated with power. goal-oriented planning and provoke fear and anxiety;
belittling and withholding consideration may sow self-
The third set of individual-situational interactions doubt and inhibit action; and forcing conflict resolution
involves directiveness and tolerance for ambiguity in and discouraging initiative may thwart attempts to
conjunction with stressors. Directiveness is the tendency affect tasks and the work unit. Brodsky (1976), for
to impose ones will on others (Ray, 1976), whereas tol- example, describes how a police officer and a social
erance of ambiguity is the tendency to perceive an equiv- worker who were arbitrarily harassed by their superiors
ocal stimulus as a threat (Budner, 1962). Individuals experienced anger, frustration, and stress-related physi-
intolerant of ambiguity are motivated to impose a clear cal symptoms.
and stable order. These tendencies are particularly likely Reactance theory argues that people react (directly
to be activated and manifest themselves as tyrannical or indirectly) against perceived causes of frustration to
behaviour during periods of high stress. In the face of restore the situation to what was expected (Brehm &
stressors, subordinates tend to look to their managers for Brehm, 1981). Thus, in a study of production workers,
strong leadership; managers tend to become more direc- Ashforth (1989) found that the lower the perceived legit-
tive; and decision-making tends to become more central- imacy of supervision, the greater the frequency of com-
ized, hasty, and arbitrary (Bass, 1990; Janis, 1982). plaints, bending or breaking rules, and criticizing people.
Individuals who are predisposed to exploit opportunities Hence:
for directiveness and to perceive a given stressor as a
potential threat are thus particularly likely to respond to H5: Tyrannical behaviour will be positively associat-
stressors with heavy-handed control. Accordingly: ed with subordinate frustration, stress, and reactance.

H3: Managers preferences for action will interact Third, tyrannical behaviour is argued to increase
with stressors such that tyrannical behaviour will be helplessness and work alienation. Helplessness is
highest for: (a) high directiveness managers in the defined as the perception that outcomes are independent
face of high stressors and (b) low tolerance of ambi-
guity managers in the face of high stressors. of behaviour (Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993).
Through arbitrariness and noncontingent punishment,
Effects of Petty Tyranny on Subordinates petty tyrants foster unpredictability, and by discouraging
initiative and forcing conflict resolution, tyrants reduce
Petty tyranny is argued to have five interdependent autonomy and opportunities for problem-solving. Work
effects on subordinates, spanning cognitive, affective, alienation is defined as a sense of separation on the part
and behavioural adjustment variables; and relations of the individual from work and the workplace
among subordinates. First, and most obviously, tyranni- (Ashforth, 1989). Arbitrariness, belittling, punitiveness,
cal behaviour is predicted to undermine leader endorse- and so forth are likely to undermine a subordinates psy-
ment. Laboratory and field research consistently indicate chological attachment to the job and organization. In an
that subordinates tend to develop very negative views of experimental simulation of a prison environment, Haney,
leaders who are perceived to treat them inequitably and Banks, and Zimbardo (1973) noted a pathological pris-
coercively (e.g., Bass, 1990; Hollander & Julian, 1970). oner syndrome in response to guards frequent harass-
Subordinates appear to share the belief that a manager, ment and capricious behaviour. This syndrome consisted
as their superior, ought to have their best interests at of passivity, dependency, depression, helplessness and
heart (although they may not share the expectation that a self-deprecation (p. 89). Thus:
manager actually will). Arbitrariness, self-aggrandize-
H6: Tyrannical behaviour will be positively associat-
ment, belittling, and other facets of tyranny clearly con- ed with subordinate helplessness and work alien-
travene this belief. Hence: ation.

H4: Tyrannical behaviour will be negatively associ- Fourth, petty tyranny is argued to undermine subor-
ated with leader endorsement.
dinates self-esteem and performance. Belittling may
erode ones sense of competence and self-worth; dis-
Second, tyrannical behaviour is hypothesized to
couraging initiative and forcing conflict resolution
increase frustration, stress, and reactance. Spector
implicitly devalue ones contributions; and withholding
(1978) defines frustration as interference with goal-ori-
consideration may reduce ones felt worth as a unique
ented activity, and Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning
person. Miller, Weiland, and Couch (1978) suggest that
(1986) define stress as an unpleasant emotional experi-
tyrants often deliberately destroy subordinates self-
ence associated with fear, anxiety, and so on. Petty tyran-
esteem so as to render them more compliant and less of
ny may foster frustration and stress in several ways: arbi-
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadrninistration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
129 -
14(2), 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS... ASHFORTH

Figure 2.
Analytic Strategy for the Hypothesized Antecedents and Effects of Petty Tyranny.

MANAGER

Antecedents

D SUBORDINATE 1

a potential threat. The evidence, however, is largely H8: Tyrannical behaviour will be negatively associ-
anecdotal. ated with work-unit cohesiveness.
Regarding performance, petty tyranny may, on the
one hand, induce defensive conformity to the tyrants As depicted in Figure 1, the model indicates that
wishes. On the other hand, the increasing sense of help- feedback loops link the hypothesized effects of tyranny
lessness and work alienation may reduce intrinsic moti- with the hypothesized antecedents and with the behav-
vation; the sense of frustration and reactance and the lack iour itself. For example, Sunars (1978) work suggests
of leader endorsement may provoke at least indirect defi- that helplessness and alienation (effects) may strengthen
ance of the tyrant; and the tyrants use of noncontingent negative attitudes toward subordinates (antecedents), and
punishment and arbitrariness and the absence of con- Zelditch and Walkers (1984) review of experimental
structive feedback may impair task learning. Laboratory research indicates that leaders encountering low
and field research generally suggest that coercive and endorsement and high reactance (effects) are more like-
punitive supervision indeed impairs task performance ly to use coercion (behaviour). However, these linkages
(e.g., Bennett & Cummings, 1991; Podsakoff & are not assessed in the present study because of its cross-
Schriesheim, 1985). However, much of this research has sectional design.
focused on fairly simple tasks. Thus, on balance:

H7: Tyrannical behaviour will be negatively associ- Method


ated with subordinate self-esteem and performance.
Sample and Procedures
Finally, petty tyranny may impair work-unit cohe-
siveness. It can be argued that tyranny may encourage Business students enrolled in evening courses at
subordinates to band together to form a collective defense Concordia University were invited to participate if they
and to provide social support. However, Miller et al. (a) were currently employed, (b) had been under their
(1 978) counter that tyrants systematically sow distrust current manager for at least five months, and (c) had at
among subordinates to prevent such coalitions from aris- least one co-worker who had also been under the man-
ing. Further, tyranny likely creates a negative climate that ager for at least five months.
impairs the development of cohesion. Once again, how- Each participant received three questionnaires: one
ever, the support is largely anecdotal. Thus, on balance: for him or herself (henceforth, subordinate 1) and one

Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration


Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
130 14(2),
- 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS ASHFORTH

each for his or her co-worker (subordinate 2) and man- variance. Two dimensions, forcing conflict resolution
ager. As depicted in Figure 2, the two subordinates ques- and noncontingent punishment, are in fact the Howat and
tionnaires were identical, and included measures of man- London (1 980) and Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber
agerial petty tyranny and the hypothesized effects, (1984) measures (respectively) by the same name, both
whereas the managers questionnaire included measures in their entirety.
of the hypothesized antecedents of tyranny (the arrows in The mean correlation between the six dimensions
Figure 2 are explained below). To preserve confidential- was .58 (pS.01). It should be noted that all 47 items
ity, each questionnaire included a postage-paid envelope loaded 2 . 4 4 on the first factor of a principal components
for direct mailing. To preserve anonymity, each set of analysis. Thus, while the six rotated factors speak to the
three questionnaires was identified only by a team num- multidimensionality of the construct, the one unrotated
ber. Usable data were returned from 81% (88/108) of the factor speaks to a certain coherence among the dimen-
teams: the final sample consists of 63 complete sets (i.e., sions. The overall petty tyranny score was calculated by
one manager and two subordinates) and 25 partial sets standardizing and summing the six scales derived from
(i.e., 12 sets with one manager and one subordinate, and the 47 items. Standardizing removed the undue weight
13 with two subordinates). accorded scales with either greater variance or a greater
This procedure enabled the assessment of leadership number of items.*
style across a diverse array of organizations, functional The correlation between subordinate 1s and subor-
areas, and hierarchies. Further, the use of multiple raters dinate 2s assessment of managerial tyranny was .52
(i.e., paired subordinates) addressed the potential (p5.01). This appears comparable to the magnitude of
method variance inherent in correlating perceptions from subordinate agreement regarding other measures of lead-
a single person (Wagner & Crampton, 1990) (see ership, such as the Leadership Behavior Description
Analysis, below). Questionnaire (D.R. Day, cited in Bass, 1990).
Fifty-eight percent of the subordinate 1 sample were Antecedents. Bureaucratic orientation was measured
female, and their mean age was 28.1 years (SD=7.7). As with Gordons (1973) 24-itenl scale. Theory X beliefs
one would expect of working students, this sample is sig- were assessed with the 9-item short-form of Spautzs
nificantly older than the Concordia business student pop- (1975) scale. Self-esteem was measured with
ulation from which it is drawn (t[1032]=4.17, pS.Ol), Rosenbergs (1965) 10-item scale. Directiveness was
but does not differ in the proportion of women assessed with the 14-item short-form of Rays (1976,
(2(1]=1.14, ns). The mean tenure of the sample under 1980) scale. Tolerance of ambiguity was measured with
their current manager * was 20.6 months (SD=21 S). the 3-item scale by OReilly, Bretton, and Roberts
Seventy percent of the subordinate 2 sample were (1974).
female, and their mean age was 28.6 years (SD=7.1). Power was measured with a 7-item scale developed
Their mean tenure under their current manager was 19.1 for this study. It assesses how much influence the man-
months (SD=19.3). Finally, 73% of the managers were ager has with regard to the individuals he or she super-
male, and their mean age was 37.8 years (SD=9.4). vises, the groups or departments with whom his or her
unit interacts most often, the immediate supervisor and
Measures higher management in general, the individuals or units
outside the organization with whom his or her unit inter-
Petty tyranny. The development of the petty tyranny acts most often, and the organization in general.
measure is described in Ashforth (1987, 1994). Briefly, Stressors were operationalized as a block variable
89 items were constructed to assess the broad domain of (Blalock, 1969) consisting of (a) role conflict, as mea-
tyrannical behaviour. Forty-five items were derived from sured by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzmans (1970) 8-item
existing leadership scales, and 44 items were generated scale, (b) role ambiguity, as measured by Rizzo et al.s
by the author based in part on a content analysis of the (1970) 6-item scale, and (c) role overload, as measured
responses of 80 business students who described actual by Beehr, Walsh, and Tabers (1976) 3-item scale.
critical incidents involving a manager they had worked Blalock recommends that the variables within a block be
under who had lorded his or her power. A sample of moderately correlated (i.e., rr.30). The mean intercorre-
562 business students who had been or were currently lation for the three scales was .36.
employed were then instructed to rate the behaviour of Organizational type was measured by an open-
their current or most recent supervisor on the 89-item ended description of the organization provided by the
scale. Factor and item analyses suggested that petty manager. Following Ashforths (1 987) use of
tyranny could be parsimoniously captured by the six Mintzbergs ( 1989) typology, organizations were coded
dimensions (rotated factors) listed earlier, encompassing as either machine/entrepreneurial (i.e., as relatively cen-
47 items. The six dimensions accounted for 59.4% of the tralized) or as professional/innovative (i.e., as relatively

Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadrninistration


Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
131 -
14(2), 126-140
-0

Table 1 3
4
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Hypothesized Antecedents Plus Tyranny i
<
ia
>
Intercorrelations z
2
Variable n Items Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4

~
1. Mean tyrannya 88 - 0.00 0.82 (->

Individual predispositions

2. Bureaucratic orientationb 75 24 1.23 0.28 14 (85)


3. Theory X orientation' 75 9 1.46 0.25 20* 42** (61)
4. Self-esteem 75 10 4.38 0.49 -0 1 -10 11 (82)
5. Directiveness 75 14 2.34 0.33 -02 -02 12 28* (65)
6. Tolerance of ambiguity 75 3 4.26 1.23 -31** -35"" -23" 17 27* (53)

Situational facilitators

7. Organizational typed 72 1 1.22 0.42 -02 -02 17 03 11 10 (-1


8. Power 75 7 3.53 0.74 -05 00 -06 26* 36** 09 -06 (84)
9. Role conflict 75 8 3.85 1.00 13 -18 11 03 -03 09 -01 -28** (62)
10. Role ambiguity 75 6 2.15 0.88 -18 -25* 03 -35** -08 12 01 -3.5"" 42** (78)
11. Role overload 75 3 3.56 1.27 13 -09 04 -05 02 10 -01 -13 38** 29** (54)
Note. Decimals in the correlation matrix are omitted. Estimates of internal consistency are along the diagonal. All variables are measured on 5-point Liken-type scales except the following:
a Computed by standardizing and summing the mean (between subordinates) of each of the six dimensions of tyranny.
Following Gordon (1973), the 5-point response scale was recoded such that Strongly disagree = 0, Disagree or Neither agree nor disagree = 1, and Agree or Strongly agree = 2.
Respondents complete a sentence by selecting one of two statements, where 1 = Theory Y orientation; 2 = Theory X orientation.
1 = machine or entrepreneurial organization; 2 = professional or innovative organization.
* p5.05
** p5.01
PETTY TYRANNY I N ORGANIZATIONS ASH FORTH

decentralized). Two coders worked in tandem, dis- nates were asked how long they had been supervised by
cussing and resolving any differences of opinion. their current manager, and managers were asked how
Outcomes. Given the high number of hypothesized many employees worked for their organization (organi-
outcome variables and the likelihood of moderate to high zation size) and how many subordinates reported direct-
correlations between many of them, Blalocks (1969) ly to them.
block variable approach was again used. Following the The descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the
grouping of outcome variables in the model (see Figure variables implicated in the hypotheses are presented in
l), five block variables were formed: (a) leader endorse- Table 1 (hypothesized antecedents plus tyranny) and
ment, (b) frustration/stress/reactance, (c) helplessness/ Table 2 (hypothesized effects plus tyranny).
work alienation, (d) self-esteedperformance, and (e)
work-unit cohesiveness. The grouping of these variables
is not meant to imply that the variables within a given Analysis
group are isomorphic, but that they are phenomenologi-
cally somewhat similar to subordinates. Blalocks criteri- Antecedents of Petty Tyranny
on of r r . 3 0 was met for all five blocks (each significant
at ~ 5 . 0 1 )Moreover,
. with few exceptions, the intercorre- Hierarchical regression analyses were used to assess
lations among the variables within each block were H I to H3. First, given the moderate correlation of .52
greater than the correlations with those outside the block. between subordinate 1s and subordinate 2s assessment
Leader endorsement was operationalized by two of managerial tyranny, a more reliable assessment was
scales: (a) leader endorsement, as assessed by a 4-item computed by standardizing and summing the mean
scale adapted from Lawler and Thompson (1978), and (between subordinates) of each of the six dimensions of
(b) leader identification, as measured by an 11-item scale tyranny. Second, mean petty tyranny was regressed on
by Gibbs, Ashforth, and House (1989). The mean corre- the control variables: managerial demographics and
lation between the two scales for the two subordinates organizational characteristics. Third, in a series of hier-
was .73. archical analyses, mean tyranny was regressed on the
Frustration was measured with Ashforths (1989) hypothesized antecedents (as provided by the manager)
2-item scale; stress was assessed with Patchens (1970) and the relevant interaction terms (see Figure 2). The low
7-item symptoms of stress scale; and reactance was mea- to moderate intercorrelations among the antecedents
sured with Ashforths (1989) 7-item scale. The mean suggest minimal redundancy; thus, to preserve degrees
intercorrelation for the three scales was .45. of freedom, mean tyranny was not regressed on all of the
Helplessness was assessed with the 6-item short- hypothesized antecedents simultaneously.
form of Ashforths (1989, 1990) scale, and work alien-
ation was operationalized using three scales: (a) organi- Effects of Petty Tyranny
zational commitment, as measured by the 15-item scale
by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) (reversed); (b) job H4 to H8 were also assessed via hierarchical regres-
involvement, as measured by the 10-item scale by sion analyses. As depicted by the arrows in Figure 2, four
Kanungo (1982) (reversed); and (c) intention to turn separate analyses were conducted: (a) subordinate 1s
over, as assessed by the 3-item scale by Seashore, assessment of petty tyranny was associated with subor-
Lawler, Mirvis, and Cammann (1982). The mean inter- dinate 1s assessment of the effects, (b) subordinate 2s
correlation for the four scales was S O . assessment of tyranny was associated with subordinate
Self-esteem was measured with Rosenbergs (1965) 2s assessment of the effects, (c) subordinate 1s assess-
10-item scale, and performance was assessed with R.J. ment of tyranny was associated with subordinate 2s
Houses (cited in Smith, 1982) 6-item self-appraisal assessment of the effects, and (d) subordinate 2s assess-
scale. The mean correlation between the two scales was ment of tyranny was associated with subordinate 1s
.33. assessment of the effects. This within-subordinate
Finally, work-unit cohesiveness was operationalized (i.e., one subordinate provides both the assessment of
by two scales: (a) social isolation, as measured by a 7- tyranny and the effects) and between-subordinate (i.e.,
item scale by Ashforth (1989) (reversed), and (b) group one subordinate provides the assessment of tyranny and
fragmentation, as measured by the 4-item internal frag- the other provides the effects) approach enabled a direct
mentation scale by Seashore et al. (1982) (reversed). The comparison of results with and without the potential con-
mean correlation between the two scales was .55. found of method variance. Note that the use of the mean
Demographic and organizational controls. Single tyranny measure discussed above would not have
items assessed respondents gender, age, education,orga- resolved this issue.
nizational tenure, and hierarchical level. Also, subordi-

Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration


Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
133 14(2),
- 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS... ASHFORTH

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Hypothesized Effects Plus Tyranny

Variable n Items Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Subordinate I :
1. Tyranny" 88 - 0.00 0.78 (-1
2. Leader endorsement 88 4 3.68 0.96 -80** (94)
3. Leader identification 88 11 3.12 0.76 -67** 69"" (92)
4. Frustration 88 2 2.92 0.98 35** -39"" -34** (80)
5. Symptoms of stressb 88 7 2.78 1.00 26** -38** -29** 64** (81)
6. Reactance 88 7 2.40 0.65 43** -35** -13 46** 39** (75)
7. Helplessness 88 6 2.67 0.76 42** -37** -46"" 36** 33"" 13 (86)
8. Intention to turn over 88 3 2.77 1.28 39"" -44** -36"" 37** 33** 41"" 32"" (88)
9. Job involvement 88 10 2.86 0.70 -30** 25** 49** -17 -12 -01 -44** -39** (87)
10. Organizational
commitment 88 15 3.28 0.72 -44"" 44"" 5O** -41** -33** -3O** -51** -66** 65** (92)
1 1. Self-esteem 88 10 4.20 0.52 -19* 07 00 -31""-25** -31** -31** -28** 08 34**
12. Performancec 88 6 7.36 0.98 -25** 25" 13 -16 -09 -33** -23" -16 30** 23*
13. Social isolation 87 7 2.65 0.69 21* -23" -36"" 03 -04 -18 32** 08 -34** -23*
14. Group fragmentation 87 4 2.72 0.97 34** -36** -28** 05 09 19* 25* 03 -16 -20"

Subordinate 2:
15. Tyranny" 76 - 0.00 0.80 51** -37** -45** 13 15 23* 27** 23" -19* -25*
16. Leader endorsement 76 4 3.64 0.95 -57** 43"" 49** -05 -09 -06 -32** -14 24" 16
17. Leader identification 75 11 2.95 0.76 -37** 21* 35**-01 -04 06 -28** -02 14 05
18. Frustration 76 2 2.93 1.02 19" -16 -19 10 15 08 15 20* -11 -14
19. Symptoms of stressb 76 7 2.74 1.09 06 -06 00 06 18 -05 10 16 -01 -05
20. Reactance 76 7 2.33 0.61 28** -16 -21* 13 15 23* 29** 00 -16 -19
21. Helplessness 76 6 2.79 0.88 24* -13 -28** -07 06 -03 33** 14 -15 -17
22. Intention to turn over 76 3 2.63 1.19 23* -12 -34** 06 07 04 37** 18 -34** -27""
23. Job involvement 76 10 2.74 0.72 -20* -02 22" -09 -05 09 -16 05 14 16
24. Organizational
commitment 76 15 3.30 0.71 -16 03 26* -11 -08 01 -31** -20* 28** 29**
25. Self-esteem 76 10 4.20 0.62 05 -05 -12 -14 -19* -19 02 -08 -02 06
26. Performancec 76 6 7.31 0.84 03 -05 -23" -18 -08 -18 00 18 -09 -08
27. Social isolation 76 7 2.53 0.72 -01 02 -03 -07 -08 -21* 04 -09 -07 06
28. Group fragmentation 76 4 2.66 0.96 19 -20* -20* 06 08 -05 17 11 -01 -02

. . . . continued

Results nates' assessment of tyranny and the hypothesized


antecedents. Mean tyranny was significantly correlated
Antecedents of Petty Tyranny with managers' tolerance of ambiguity (r=-.31, ~ 5 . 0 1 )
and Theory X beliefs (r=.20, ~ 1 . 0 5 )In. addition, subor-
Table 1 presents the correlations between subordi- dinate 2's rating of tyranny (not shown) was positively
Revue canadienne des sciences de l'administration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
134 14(2),
- 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS ... ASHFORTH

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Hypothesized Effects Plus Tyranny-Continued

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(84)
38** (80)
-11 00 (85)
-02 05 61** (88)

-22* -11 -04 00 (-1


02 -06 -14 -16 -68** (93)
17 -08 -13 -15 -65** 77** (90)
-09 09 -03 -02 44"" -34** -37** (81)
-14 01 -04 -16 30** -21* -25" 56** (85)
-27** -04 03 12 41** -21* -22* 45"" 20" (72)
-11 -10 02 09 43** -46** -55** 34** 27** 18 (86)
-05 -10 -07 -12 33** -38** -39** 44** 11 17 41"" (88)
16 -05 00 03 -21* 33** 53**-16 -01 -06 -32**-38**(86)

22" 00 12 17 -39** 45** 58**-39** -14 -11 -52**-75** 67**(91)


18 -04 22* 19 -36** 12 27* -42** -48** -35** -27**-17 07 21" (88)
19* 07 00 -03 03 -02 -03 02 -12 -20* 11 18 05 -03 27**(69)
05 16 34** 10 20* -32** -28** 36"" 27** 18 12 06 -17 -16 -03 -10 (84)
05 03 26* 14 41** -38** -35** 38** 43** 17 43** 03 -05 -11 -27**-05 48"" (81)

Note. Decimals in the correlation matrix are omitted. Estimates of internal consistency are along the diagonal. All variables are measured on 5-point
Likert-type scales except the following:
a Computed by standardizing and summing each of the six dimensions of tyranny. When the 47 items from which the dimensions are derived are sim

ply summed, the descriptive statistics are as follows: Subordinate 1:X = 2.21, SD = 0.65, Q = .96, Subordinate 2: X = 2.22, SD = 0.66, Q = .96.
Two of the items are measured on 5-point Liken-type scales, and five items are measured on 6-point Likert-type scales.
Measured on a 9-point Likert-type scale.
* p 5 .05
** p 5 . 0 1

associated with managers' bureaucratic orientation Demographic and situational variables were entered as
(p.23, ~ 5 . 0 5 ) . potential controls. Mean tyranny was first regressed on
The interactions between individual predispositions the managerial demographic variables (age, gender, edu-
and situational facilitators detailed in H1, H2, and H3, cation, organizational tenure). Neither the equation
were examined through hierarchical regression analyses. (F(4,52)=<1) nor any single demographic variable was
Revue canadienne des sciences de I'administration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
135 -14(2), 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS... ASHFORTH

significant. Accordingly, none of these variables was cal level, the managers number of direct subordinates).
retained, and mean tyranny was regressed on the organi- Third, the block variable was regressed on any signifi-
zational variables not hypothesized as antecedents (orga- cant controls from the previous step and the individuals
nization size, number of direct subordinates, hierarchical assessment of managerial tyranny. This approach
level). Once again, neither the equation (F(3,71)=<1) nor enabled an assessment of the unique contribution of
any single variable was significant. Thus, none of these tyrannical behaviour to each hypothesized effect. In a
variables was retained. critical variation of the third step, the other subordinates
HI held that the individual predispositions of assessment of tyranny was used instead of the focal sub-
bureaucratic orientation and Theory X beliefs will inter- ordinates assessment, providing the between-subordi-
act with the situational facilitator of organizational type nate analysis. As noted, this variation enabled us to
to predict tyrannical management. However, neither of assess the contribution of tyrannical behaviour to the
the regression equations, with the main effect and inter- hypothesized effects without the potential confound of
action terms entered, was significant: bureaucratic orien- common method variance.
tation/organizational type: F(3,68)=< 1; Theory Xlorga- The results are presented in Table 3. The table pro-
nizational type: F(3,68)=1 S 6 . vides the relevant Bs and F-ratios for the third step (and
H2 held that for managers with relatively low the variation) in the hierarchical regression analyses for
self-esteem, tyranny will be associated with power in a subordinates 1 and 2. Regarding the within-subordinate
U-shaped function, but for managers with relatively analyses, for subordinate 1, managerial tyranny was sig-
high self-esteem, tyranny will not be associated with nificantly associated with all five block variables; for
power. Based on a median split, managers were divided subordinate 2, tyranny was significantly associated with
into low and high self-esteem groups. For each group, four of the five (the exception was self-esteemlperfor-
mean tyranny was then regressed on power and its mance). Regarding the between-subordinate analyses,
square (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The regression equation subordinate 1s assessment of tyranny predicted subordi-
was not significant for either the relatively low self- nate 2s leader endorsement and helplessness/work
esteem group (F(2,28)=<1) nor the high group alienation at ~ 5 . 0 5and frustratiodstresslreactance at
(F(2,29)<1). p. 10; subordinate 2s assessment of tyranny predicted
Finally, H3 held that a managers directiveness and subordinate 1s leader endorsement and helplessness /
tolerance of ambiguity will each interact with situation- work alienation at ~ 5 . 0 5and self-esteem / performance
al stressors to predict tyranny. The regression equation at p ~ . 1 0 . 3
for tolerance of ambiguity/stressors was significant In sum, the within-subordinate hierarchical regres-
(F(3,7 1)=2.83, p ~ . 0 5 ) but
, the interaction term did not sion analyses provide support for H4 (leader endorse-
attain significance. The regression equation for direc- ment), H5 (frustratiodstress/reactance), H6 (helpless-
tiveness/stressors was not significant (F(3,71)=<1). nesslwork alienation), and H8 (work-unit cohesiveness);
and mixed support for H7 (self-esteedperformance).
Effects of Petty Tyranny The between-subordinate analyses provide support for
H4 and H6, mixed support for H5 and H7, and no sup-
Table 2 presents the correlations between tyranny port for H8.
and the 13 effects (the 5 aggregated block variables are
not shown). Subordinate 1s assessment of managerial
tyranny was significantly associated with all 13 effects Discussion and Conclusion
(and all 5 block variables) for subordinate 1, and with 7
effects (3 of 5 blocks) for subordinate 2. Subordinate 2s The study provides the first empirical assessment of
assessment of tyranny was significantly associated with a formal model of petty tyranny in organizations. It
8 effects ( 3 of 5 blocks, plus one at ~ 5 . 1 0 for
) subordi- found that the tendency to lord ones power over others
nate 1, and with 12 effects (4 of 5 blocks, plus one at could be reliably assessed by pairs of subordinates (in
~ 5 . 1 0 for
) subordinate 2. terms of both internal consistency and inter-rater agree-
The associations between tyranny and the effects ment). However, none of the three interactions hypothe-
were examined more rigorously through hierarchical sized to foster petty tyranny were supported, although
regression analyses. First, for each subordinate, each subordinates joint ratings of tyranny were significantly
block variable was regressed on the demographic control correlated with managers tolerance of ambiguity (nega-
variables (age, gender, education, organizational tenure). tively) and Theory X beliefs (positively), and for the sub-
Second, the block variable was regressed on any signifi- ordinate 2 group only, with managers bureaucratic ori-
cant demographic variables as well as situational control entation (positively). Of the five hypothesized effects of
variables (organization type, organization size, hierarchi- petty tyranny on subordinates, within-subordinate
Revue calladiemre des sciences de Iadrninistration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
136 14(2), 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY 1N ORGANIZATIONS ... ASHFORTH

~ ~ ~~ ~ ~

Table 3
Regression Results for Hypothesized Dependent Variables

Independent variables

With subordinate 1 With subordinate 2


Dependent variables rating of tyranny rating of tyranny

Subordinate I
Leader endorsement Age: .05 Age: .14
Tyranny: -.79** Tyranny: -.41**
( F (2,84) = 76.76**) ( F (2,72) = 9.79***)

Frustrationlstresslreactance Tyranny: .4 1** Tyranny: .20


( F (1,86) = 17.65**) ( F (1,74) = 2.98)

Helplessness/work alienation Age: -.19 Age: -.23*


Tyranny: .45** Tyranny: .25*
( F (2,84) = 15.57**) ( F (2,72) = 5.93**)

Self-esteem/performance Tyranny: -.28** Tyranny: -.17


( F ( I ,86) = 7.04**) ( F (1,74) = 2.33**)

Work-unit cohesiveness Hierarchical level: -.30** Hierarchical level: -.33**


Direct subordinates: -.33** Direct subordinates: -.35**
Tyranny: -.28** Tyranny: -.01
( F (3,70) = 8.03**) ( F (3,59) = 4.23**)
Subordinate 2 I

Leader endorsement Education: -.24* Education: -18*


Organization tenure: -.13 Organization tenure: -.23**
Tyranny: -.43** Tyranny: -.68**
( F (3,70) = 9.96"") ( F (3,70) = 29.39"")

Frustration/stress/reactance Tyranny: .21 Tyranny: .47**


( F (1,74) = 3.42) ( F (1,741 = 21.30**)

Helplessness/work alienation Age: -.33** Age: -.25*


Organization type: .34** Organization type: .32**
Tyranny: .26* Tyranny: .37**
( F ( 3 3 5 ) = 5.76**) ( F ( 3 5 5 ) = 7.81**)

Self-esteem/performance Tyranny: -. 18
( F (1.74) = 2.39)

Work unit cohesiveness Tyranny: -. I2 Tyranny: -.37**


( F (1,74) = 1.03) ( F (1,74) = 1 1.57**)

Nore. Column entries are standardized (3s. The inclusion of demographic and organizational control variables resulted in varying sample sizes across
analyses, thus raising the possibility that the data for any one analysis are not representative. To check for the robustness of the results, the regressions
were rerun without the control variables. The results presented above were not significantly affected.
:k /15.05
:$* p5.01

Revue canadienne des sciencca dc I'administration


Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
137 14(2), 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS ASHFORTH

regression analyses provided support for leader endorse- old effects and discontinuous change. This suggests a
ment (negative), frustration/stress/reactance (positive), very provocative direction for future research. As noted,
helplessness/work alienation (positive), and work-unit the model of petty tyranny in Figure 1 is based largely on
cohesiveness (negative), and mixed support for self- rich anecdotal evidence. The strength of such idiograph-
esteedperformance (negative). More rigorous between- ic accounts lies precisely in their ability to illuminate a
subordinate analyses provided support for leader gestalt. What may be needed, then, is a design that more
endorsement and helplessness/work alienation, mixed rigorously captures the hypothesized gestalt of tyranni-
support for frustration/stress/reactance and self- cal management. One possibility would be to have indi-
esteedperformance, and no support for work-unit cohe- viduals nominate a set of managers in their organization
siveness. who lord their power and a set of managers who do not
lord their power. Phillips and Lord (1986) maintain that
A Second Look at the Phenomenon of Petty Tyranny classifying leaders into such categories capitalizes on
perceivers natural tendency to form holistic perceptions
The problematic results regarding the hypothesized of others and on the salience of such categorical percep-
antecedents may be at least partly attributable to the rel- tions. Discriminant analysis could then be utilized to
atively low reliabilities (<.70) of some of the determine the variables that best discriminate between
antecedents. Low reliabilities, of course, attenuate pre- the tyrannical and nontyrannical managers.
dictive power. The problematic results might also reflect Further, the present study assumed a dyadic per-
conceptual issues. First, it was implicitly assumed that spective: that subordinates could provide reliable and
the hypothesized antecedents are related to tyrannical valid data on the tyrannical behaviours of their immedi-
behaviour in an atomized fashion - such that, say, two ate manager. However, the viewpoint of subordinates is
units of power/self-esteem provoke one unit of tyranny. necessarily circumscribed by their role and may be influ-
Second, it was implicitly assumed that the distribution of enced by their dependent status, and managers may well
tyranny, although somewhat positively skewed, tends alter their behaviour for different audiences (Adorno et
toward normality - such that managers can be al., 1950). Thus, it would be useful to compare the per-
described as more or less tyrannical. However, the poor ceptions of subordinates with those of others, such as the
showing of the hypothesized antecedents of tyranny and focal managers colleagues and superiors. Moreover,
the relatively low level of perceived tyranny (mean for survey methods could be complemented by additional
the 88 sets [based on unstandardized dimensions] = 2.20, methods, including participant observation, interviews,
on a 5-point scale) suggest that these assumptions may and content analyses of published accounts of prominent
warrant reexamination. organizational leaders. Such methods would be particu-
Perhaps petty tyranny can be more accurately larly helpful in adducing elements of the organizational
described as a gestalt or syndrome, that is, as a set of context that bear on the emergence and maintenance of
individual predispositions, situational facilitators, leader tyrannical tendencies.
behaviours, and subordinate effects that form a relative- Future research might also profitably employ a lon-
ly integrated and coherent cluster. Because the compo- gitudinal design to capture potential feedback loops
nents are mutually reinforcing (as indicated by the feed- between the effects of petty tyranny and hypothesized
back arrows in Figure l), the gestalt would likely be antecedents. Given the honeymoon effect, where people
resistant to change. initially tend to view a new leader in very positive terms,
This gestalt notion focuses attention on the whole, such a design may also capture the process of disillu-
the pathological configuration, rather than on individual sionment that ultimately undermines leader endorse-
variables. Whereas any given manager might display ment.
tyrannical tendencies from time to time - and it may Finally, future research might seek to determine the
well be these tendencies that are captured by the present prevalence of petty tyranny in general, and specifically
research design - the full-blown pathology of petty within and between various categories, such as demo-
tyranny would tend to be much less common and would graphic groupings (e.g., gender, age, education), hierar-
require the press of some potent combination of individ- chical ranks, departmental and organizational forms,
ual and situational antecedents. Indeed, perhaps petty industries, and nations. Whatever its current prevalence,
tyranny is based at least partly on some form of psy- it seems likely that petty tyranny will become less com-
chopathology, such as paranoia or compulsiveness (Kets mon in the future - at least in many industrialized
de Vries, 1991). Thus, rather than look for atomized and nations - due to a variety of interlocking trends: the
essentially linear associations between antecedents and shift to flatter hierarchies and an emphasis on lateral ver-
tyrannical behaviours, the focus would shift toward sus vertical information and decision-making flows; the
holistic and nonlinear associations, replete with thresh- growing reliance on teamwork, self-managing units, and

Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration


Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
138 14(2), 126-I40
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS ASHFORTH

360-degree feedback; the increasing power of expertise multitheoretical perspective. Human Perfnrmance, 4 (2).
relative to authority; the growing proportion of female 15.5-169.
managers and the decline of patriarchies; and the shift Blalock, H.M., Jr. (1969). Theory construction: From verbal to
from routine technologies and unskilled work to nonrou- mathematical formulations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
tine technologies and knowledge-intensive work. These
Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J.W. (1981). k?YyChOkJgiCCd reacfuncc:
and other trends will likely make the managerial failings
A fheory of freedom and control. New York: Academic
of the petty tyrant more obvious and less tolerable. Press.
Brodsky, C.M. (1976). The harassed workec Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath.
Conclusion Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality
variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29-50.
The study assessed the validity of the model of Chatman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational
organizational petty tyrant behaviours, antecedents, and research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of
effects presented in Ashforth (1994). Pairs of subordi- Management Review, 14, 333-349.
nates evidenced reasonable agreement in their percep- Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple
regressiodcorrelation analysis for the behavioral sci-
tions of their managers tyrannical behaviours. Although
ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
these perceptions were not found to be significantly
Giarrusso, N. (1990). An issue ofjob satisfaction. Unpublished
associated with the hypothesized interactions of individ- undergraduate term paper, Concordia University,
ual and situational antecedents, they were significantly Montreal.
associated with an array of hypothesized pernicious Gibbs, B.W., Ashforth, B.E., & House, R.J. (1989).
effects on subordinates cognitions, affective states, and Charismatic leadership in the organization: A test of the
behaviours. Thus, this research offers a promising start House model. Paper presented at the regional conference
toward unravelling an especially insidious form of lead- of the International Association for Cross-Cultural
ership - particularly if future research can successfully Psychology, Amsterdam.
isolate managers who do not merely display occasional Gordon, L.V. (1 973). Work environment preference schedule:
tyrannical tendencies, but who can be truly described as Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal
petty tyrants.
dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of
Criminology and Penology, I , 69-97.
Hollander, E.P., & Julian, J.W. (1970). Studies in leader legiti-
References macy, influence, and innovation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5 , pp.
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., & 33-69). New York: Academic Press.
Sanford, R.N. ( 1950). The authoritarian personality. New House, R., Rousseau, D.M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The
York: Harper & Row. meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro
Allinson, C.W. (1984). Bureaucratic personality and organisa- and macro organizational behavior. In L.L. Cummings &
tion structure. Aldershot, England: Cower. B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
Ashforth, B.E. (1987). Organizations and the petty tyrant: An (Vol. 17, pp. 71-1 14). Greenwich, C T JAI Press.
exploratory study. Paper presented at the annual meeting Howat, G., & London, M. (1980). Attributions of conflict man-
of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA. agement strategies in supervisor-subordinate dyads.
Ashforth, B.E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 172- 175.
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Izraeli, D.N. (197.5). The middle manager and the tactics of
Decision Processes, 43, 207-242. power expansion: A case study. Sloan Management
Ashforth, B.E. (1 990). The organizationally induced helpless- Review, 16 ( 2 ) ,57-70.
ness syndrome: A preliminary model. Canadian Journal Janis, I.L. (1982). Decisionmaking under stress. In L.
of Administrative Sciences, 7 (3). 30-36. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook Qf stress:
Ashforth, B.E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 69-87). New York:
Relations, 47, 755-778. Free Press.
B a s , B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership: Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women ofthe corporation. New
Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). York: Basic Books.
New York: Free Press. Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involve-
Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T., & Taber, T.D. (1976). Relationship of ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341 -349.
stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Kets de Vries, M.F.R. ( 1 989). Prisoners of leadership. New
Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied York: Wiley.
Psychology, 6 I , 4 1-47. Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (Ed.) (1991). Organizations on the
Bennett, R.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1991). The effects of sched- couch: Clinical perspectives on organizational behavior
ule and intensity of aversive outcomes on performance: A and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration


Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
139 14(2), 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS ASHFORTH

Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Rizzo, J., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.1. (1970). Role conflict
Chicago Press. and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrtrtive
Lawler, E.J., & Thompson, M.E. (1978). Impact of leader Science Quarterly, 15, 150- 163.
responsibility for inequity on subordinate revolts. Sociul Rosenberg, M. ( 1965). Society and the adolescent .self-image.
Psychology Quarterly, 41, 264-268. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Rubin, R. (1987). Modern dictators: Third world coup makers,
Scott, Foresman. strongmen, andpopulist tyrants. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (Eds.)
McGraw-Hill. ( 1982). Observing and measuring organizational change:
Merton, R.K. (1968). Social theory and sociul .xtructure (Rev. A guide tofiefdpmctice. New York: Wiley.
ed.). New York: Free Press. Smith, B.J. (1982). An initial test of a theory ojcharismatic
Miller, D.E., Weiland, M.W., & Couch, C.J. (1978). Tyranny. leadership based on the responses of subordinates.
In N.K. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interuction Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
(Vol. 1, pp. 267-288). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Spautz, M.E. (1975). A new scale for Theories X and Y.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on manugement: Inside our Australian Journal of P hology, 27, 127-141.
strange world of organization.s. New York: Free Press. Spector, P.E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and
Mossholder, K.W., Niebuhr, R.E., & Norris, D.R. (1990). review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31, 8 IS-
Effects of dyadic duration on the relationship between 829.
leader behavior perceptions and follower outcomes. Sunar, D.G. (1978). Stereotypes of the powerless: A social psy-
Journal of Organizational Behavior; I I , 379-388. chological analysis. Psychological Reports, 43, 5 1 1-528.
Motowidlo, S.J., Packard, J.S., & Manning, M.R. (1986). Thompson, V.A. (1961). Modern organization. New York:
Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job Alfred A. Knopf.
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618- Wagner, J.A., 111, & Crampton, S.M. (1990). Percept-percept
629. methods in psychological research on organizations: A
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The mea- meta-analytic investigation of artifactual effects. Academy
surement of organizational commitment. Journal of ofhlanagement Best Papers Proceedings, 400-404.
Vocational Behavior; 4, 224-247. Zelditch, M., Jr., & Walker, H.A. (1984). Legitimacy and the
Nulty, P. (1989, Feb. 27). Americas toughest bosses. Fortune, stability of authority. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.), Advunces in
pp. 40-43, 46, 50, 54. group processes (Vol. I. pp. 1-25). Greenwich, C T JAI
OReilly, C.A., 111, Bretton, G.E., & Roberts, K.H. (1974). Press.
Professional employees preference for upward mobility:
An extension. Journal ofVocational Behuvioc 5, 139- 145.
Patchen, M. ( 1970). Participation, achievement and involve- Notes
ment on the job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Peterson, C., Maier, S.F., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1993). Learned
Given the pathological nature of petty tyranny, I expected
helplessness: A theory f o r the age of personal control.
to find relatively few highly tyrannical individuals, and
New York: Oxford University Press.
thus, a positively skewed distribution of tyranny scores. In
Phillips, J.S., & Lord, R.G. (1986). Notes on the practical and
theoretical consequences of implicit leadership theories fact, the skewness coefficient was only moderate (subor-
for the future of leadership measurement. Journal of dinate 1: 0.81; subordinate 2: 0.78). Not surprisingly,
Mana~ement,12, 3 1-4 1. then, a square root transformation of the tyranny scores
Podsakoff, P.M., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1985). Field studies of yielded virtually identical results to those reported below.
French and Ravens bases of power: Critique, reanalysis, The impact of standardization on the results reported
and suggestions for future research. Psychological below was in fact marginal since the correlation between
Bulletin, 97, 387-41 1. the standardized tyranny score and the unstandardized
Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., & Huber, V.L. score was ~ . 9 (9p . 0 1 ) for both subordinate I and sub-
(1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and pun- ordinate 2.
ishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational
Following the findings of Mossholder, Niebuhr, and
Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.
Norris (1990), moderated regression analysis was utilized
Ray, J.J. (1976). Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes?
Human Relations, 29, 307-325. to assess whether the associations between tyrannical
Ray, J.J. (1980). Authoritarianism in California 30 years later behaviour and the hypothesized effects were moderated
- with some cross-cultural comparisons. Journal [j by the length of time a subordinate had served under their
Social Psychology, I I I, 9- 17. manager. No interaction term was significant.

Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadrninihtration


Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
140 ___
14(2), 126-140