Ingratiating with Despotic Leaders to Gain Status: The Role of Power Distance Orientation and Self-enhancement Motive
This study adds to business ethics research by investigating how employees’ exposure to despotic leadership might influence their peer-rated workplace status, along with a mediating role of ingratiatory behavior targeted at supervisors and a moderating role of their power distance orientation and self-enhancement motive. Multisource, three-wave data from employees and their peers in Pakistani organizations reveal that exposure to despotic leaders spurs employees’ upward ingratiatory behavior, and this behavior in turn can help them attain higher status in the organization. The mediating role of upward ingratiatory behavior also is more prominent among employees with higher levels of power distance orientation and self-enhancement motive. For business ethics scholars, this study thus pinpoints a potentially dangerous pathway—featuring employees’ deliberate efforts to impress self-centered, destructive supervisors—by which despotic leadership can generate beneficial outcomes for employees but not for the organization, as well as how this process varies due to key personal characteristics.
KeywordsDespotic leadership Ingratiatory behavior Workplace status Power distance orientation Self-enhancement motive Conservation of resources theory
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. (1997). The transplanted executive: Why you need to understand how workers in other countries see the world differently. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Emerson, R. M. (1981). Social exchange theory. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
- Geertshuis, S. A., Morrison, R. L., & Cooper-Thomas, H. D. (2015). It’s not what you say, it’s the way that you say it: The mediating effect of upward influencing communications on the relationship between leader-member exchange and performance ratings. International Journal of Business Communication,52, 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2000). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organization behavior (2nd ed., pp. 57–81). New York: Dekker.Google Scholar
- Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Levy, D. A., Collins, B. E., & Nail, P. R. (1998). A new model of interpersonal influence characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,13, 715–735.Google Scholar
- Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F., Donia, M. B. L., & Darr, W. (2016). Perils of being close to a bad leader in a bad environment: Exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader member exchange, and perceived organizational politics on behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly,27, 14–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pandey, J. (1981). Effects of Machiavellianism and degree of organizational formalization on ingratiation. Psychologia,24, 41–46.Google Scholar
- Pearce, J. L. (2011). Introduction: The power of status. In J. L. Pearce (Ed.), Status in management and organizations (pp. 1–22). Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
- Roberson, L., Galvin, B. M., & Charles, A. C. (2007). When group identities matter: Bias in performance appraisal. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Academy of management annals (Vol. 1, pp. 617–650). Philadelphia, PA: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Studenmund, A. H. (1992). Using econometrics: A practical guide. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
- Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,43, 178–190.Google Scholar