5 assignements needed by saturday morning

The Hierarchical Abuse of Power in Work Organizations

Donald Vredenburgh Yael Brender

ABSTRACT Although much theoretical and empir- ical research has examined organizational power, virtually none has addressed the hierarchical abuse of power in organizations. Managers' incentives and discretion and subordinates' dependencies define the abuse of power as an important organizational issue. This paper offers a conceptualization and process model to help further theoretical and applied under- standing, and it considers the ethical nature of power abuse. Two dimensions, disrespect for individual dignity and interference with job performance or deserved rewards, conceptualize the interpersonal abuse of power. Behavioral examples of each dimen- sion are provided.

The process model delineates powerholders' motives to abuse power and indicates individual attributes that increase the probability of their pur- suing these motives. Organizational conditions that allow or encourage the abuse of power and managers' particular sources of power interact with these motives and attributes to define decisions about abusing power. Norms and considerations of risk influence these decisions. The decision to abuse power leads to the enactment of power strategies, and they generate intended and unintended outcomes. The process model presented here recognizes an emotional component of the hierarchical abuse of power.

Donald Vredenburgh is a professor of organizational behavior in the Department of Management at Baruch College, The City University of New York. His research has focused on organizational design, the exercise of power in organizations, and organizational politics and has appeared in numerous academic journals.

Yael Brender recently received her doctorate in organization and policy studies from the Ph.D. in Business Program of Baruch College, The City University of New York Graduate School. She published a paper on organiza- tional democracy. Her previous education occurred at Hebrew University offerusalem.

Power is necessary and problematic in organiza- tions. Defined as the ability to get things done the way one wants them to be done (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977), power in organizations lacks precise boundaries yet carries pervasive impor- tance. Organizational power requires responsi- bility because of opportunities for abuse, e.g. arbitrary personnel actions or demands for personal service. Lord Acton's assertion that power tends to corrupt (1979) suggests that indi- viduals possess incentives to abuse it.

Much organization research has addressed power, but that research has not incorporated the hierarchical, interpersonal abuse of power. The issue has received some popular attention (Goleman, 1986; Terkel, 1972), but advances in organizational knowledge require research into the hierarchical abuse of power. In organizations managers can abuse organizational members or the organization itself through power. The present focus is on the hierarchical, interpersonal abuse of organizational members, specifically on managers' abusive exercises of powder with sub- ordinates, and not on the personal use of an orga- nization's other resources for private purposes.

The purposes of this paper are to conceptu- alize the hierarchical, interpersonal abuse of power, to model the process of the abusive exercise of power, and to address directly the ethics of the abuse of power in work organiza- tions. No assumptions about the pervasiveness of power abuse or the desirability of equalizing power in organizations underlie this considera- tion. Rather, the intent is to contribute to an understanding of an important organizational and social issue through initial conceptualization and theory. The paper conceptualizes the hierarchical abuse of power dimensionally and discusses

fournal of Business Ethics 17: 1 3 3 7 - 1 3 4 7 , 1998. © 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

1338 Donald Vredenburgh and Yael Brender

pertinent level of analysis issues, develops a process model incorporating individual charac- teristics, situational conditions, strategic decisions and outcomes, and applies ethical criteria to the abuse of power in work organizations.

Opportunities for the abuse of power

The exercise of power in organizations occurs frequently and diversely. Through formal authority, cultural norms, technical expertise, and organizational politics, individuals with power attempt to influence others (Mintzberg, 1983). However most instances ofthe exercise of power involve hierarchical authority directly or con- textually. While recent organizational restructur- ings and advances in information technology may have altered some organizations' hierarchies (Zuboff, 1988), the continued prevalence of these structures, with their considerable potential for abuse, defines a need for attention to the hierar- chical abuse of power.

Individuals in organizations possess incentives to abuse power because of its importance in affecting action and acquiring rewards, its status as a valued resource, and its provision of autonomy. Power represents the currency in organizations that allows individuals and groups to gratify needs and attain goals. In addition insti- tutionalized forms of power constitute a primary source of privilege and prestige in a democratic society. Kipnis (1972) has delineated the temp- tations powerholders confront to manipulate the less powerful. Due to hierarchical authority, resource control, and network centrality (Astley and Sachdeva, 1984), managers have considerable opportunity to abuse power. Because of few per- ceived financial benefits versus costs of compre- hensively controlling managerial discretion, organizations trust managers with considerable autonomy in the exercise of power. The use of power within economic organizations remains a private issue in a capitalistic democratic society such as the United States (Nord, 1978).

Two aspects of power that make managers vulnerable to abusing it are its relational nature and its possible nonrational use. With regard to the relational nature of power, dependency

characterizes longitudinal, hierarchical relation- ships in work organizations (Kotter, 1985). The dependency facet of these exchange relationships makes the possible abuse of power a potentially continual problem in organizations where hier- archical relationships mean subordinates depend on superiors for important rewards without recourse to other sources (Emerson, 1962).

The organizationally rational application of power can harm subordinates, but the nonra- tional use of power heightens the likelihood of abuse. Power in organizations is context specific according to Pfeffer (1981), and organizations are contexts of manifest and latent conflicts. Often conduct of these conflicts becomes political or emotional, such that power can be used for orga- nizationally nonrational conflict behavior.

Conceptualization of the hierarchical ahuse of power

Ultimately the organizational rationale for the interpersonal exercise of power lies in functional effects for job performance (Allen and Porter, 1983). Power exists in organizations to facilitate proficient, coordinated task performance, and this power and performance relationship is often realized through rewards. However organizations are not pure meritocratic entities, and managers can affect subordinate performance adversely as well as positively.

In addition, a powerholder's interpersonal exercise of power can result, inadvertently or purposefully, in changes in the subordinate's felt respect and dignity. This is analogous to leader- ship practices generating unplanned attitudinal outcomes (House and Baetz, 1979). Nord (1978) has discussed the relationship between dignity and power in organizations, and Kipnis (1972) has described the lessening of respect for subor- dinates that many powerholders experience. Similarly, Lukes (1986) asserted that power- holders' desires and beliefs affect others' well- being.

Thus two premises about the exercise of power underlie the conceptualization of the hierarchical abuse of power developed here: (1) A powerholder's exercise of power can increase

The Hierarchical Abuse of Power in Work Organizations 1339

or decrease others' feelings of dignity and self-respect, and (2) The exercise of power can contribute to or diminish subordinates' job per- formance and acquisition of deserved rewards.

Figure 1 presents a conceptualization of the hierarchical exercise of power. Because the abuse of power is an instance of the exercise of power, the figure suggests two defining dimensions of the abuse of power: disrespect for individual dignity and obstacles to job performance and/or deserved rewards. These two dimensions, which resemble the procedural and distributive dimen- sions, which resemble the procedural and dis- tributive dimensions of organizational justice discussed by Tyler and Bies (1990), receive equal weights in this conceptualization. The hierarchical abuse of power is defined as acts which manifest dis- respect for a subordinate's dignity or provide obstacles to a subordinate's performance or deserved rewards.

Figure 2 presents some examples of these defining dimensions of the abusive exercise of power. These Figure 2 examples derive primarily from a survey conducted over four years with a convenience sample of 505 MBA students at an urban United States business school; 369 students employed full-time for at least two years provided examples that led to the identification of the abuse of power dimensions. Students were asked via an open-ended, anonymous questionnaire, ""Sometimes some managers in organizations abuse their power. If relevant, would you please provide an example of a situation you have expe- rienced or know about in which a boss exer- cised power abusively. What did the boss do that made it abusive?" Respondents were also asked

subordinate's Job Performance or Rewards

Functional

Supportive

Respect for

Subordinate's Dignity

Helpful- -Harmful

Dysfunctional

Figure 1. Hierarchical interpersonal exercise of power.

Dimensions

Disrespect for Individual Dignity

obstacles to Job Performance or Rewards

Managerial Examples

Impose demands for illegal cooperation

Physically harass Verbally harass or embarrass publicly Insist on attitudinal conformity Gossip harmfully Exact personal service Manipulate dependency Lie, exaggerate, or make insincere

promises

Hake arbitrary personnel selection decisions

Assume credit for subordinates' work deceptively

Deprive subordinates of resources necessary for task performance

DiscrimInateregardingperformance appraisal

Allocate rewards arbitrarily Attribute own poor performance to

subordinates Require attendance at company

social events

Figure 2. Dimensions and examples of the hierarchi- cally abusive exercise of power.

to provide examples of the supportive exercise of power. This procedure resembles that used in the research on power by Kipnis, Schmidt and Wilkinson (1980) and is particularly pertinent to early conceptualization and model development.

The exercise of power is abusive to subordi- nates when its outcomes are both harmful to dignity and dysfunctional for performance or deserved rewards. However, a manager abuses power when either defining condition obtains, for example a manager purposely withholding information necessary for improved task per- formance from a subordinate exercises power dysfunctionally for job performance yet not disrespectfully of individual dignity. Alternately, a manager who engages in public, verbal task harassment that induces incremental productivity is behaving disrespectfully of dignity yet func- tionally for job performance. In both instances, an abuse of power occurs.

The abusive exercise of power may be indirect, i.e., not involving direct interaction between a manager and subordinate. When one or more subordinates receives undeserved preferential rewarded treatment, for example, those being comparatively deprived suffer an abuse of power. When a manager gossips personal, confidential information, the subject endures an abuse of power. In the first case deserved rewards do not ensue, while in the second the manager fails to respect a subordinate's dignity.

1340 Donald Vredenburgh and Yael Brender

Levels o f analysis

Because of the relational nature of the exercise of power, a conceptualization ofthe hierarchical abuse of power should focus on managers and subordinates' relationships. Much organizational power derives from an organization's hierarchical structure that generates interpersonal power rela- tionships. Tyler and Bies (1990) have discussed the importance of focusing on interpersonal context, including respect, for understanding the exercise of power. Because individuals perpetrate abuses and individuals suffer abuses, the appro- priate unit of analysis for initial research into the abuse of power is the individual. Future research may want to focus on manager and subordinate dyads, organizational units, or organizational cultures as the appropriate level of analysis.

Subordinate perceptions. The present conceptual- ization recognizes the primary importance ofthe individual subordinate in the hierarchical abuse of power. Insofar as the subordinate suffers the wrong when a manager abuses power, the sub- ordinate's perception ofthe manager's exercise of power should indicate the presence of abuse. A subordinate perceives a given instance of a boss's exercise of po^ver as either a (1) Legitimate, efFec- tive use of power, (2) Legitimate, ineffective

exercise of power, or (3) Abusive exercise of power. The distinction between a legitimate, ineffective use and a nonlegitimate, abusive use is a perceptual attribution of intent or motive. When a subordinate feels diminished in dignity or obstructed in performance or rewards and attributes to the manager one of the personal motives indicated in Figure 3, the subordinate perceives an abuse of power and not just a mistaken use.

Proposition 1: The subordinate's perspective should define the hierarchical abuse of power because it is his or her dignity or performance/reward that is harmed.

Brass and Burkhardt (1993) demonstrated the feasibility of the perceptual measurement of orga- nizational power. Operationalizing the perceived abuse of power will require the psychometric development of a scale for subordinates that contains items describing a boss's behavior. The scale will tap subordinate perceptions of rather salient behaviors and will exclude common orga- nizational behaviors, such as simple disagreement, from being characterized as abusive. In addition the scale must incorporate attributions of intent and thus distinguish legitimate, ineffective exer- cises of power from abusive ones.

A possible problem of perceptual bias remains.

t Powarholders' Motives:

Greater control Personal service Goal attainment Loyalty and obedience Punishment/favoritism

Activating Condition!:

Secrecy Performance pressure Ends/means uncertainty

Riak Conaideration

Powarholdars' Attributes:

High need for power Low self-esteem High egocentrism Low caring about people Low ethical sensitivity Risk talcing propensity High emotionalism

Souraaa:

Position Resources Personal appeal Past action

Powar Abuaa Daciaiona

Nor ma

"" Stratagiaa """•

Direct pressure Upward appeal Exchange Ingratiation Inspiration

Outcomaa

Intended/ unintended

Dignity Performance or

rewards

Figure 3. The hierarchically abusive exercise of power.

The Hierarchical Abuse of Power in Work Organizations 1341

such that select subordinate attributes may increase the probability of perceiving abuse. For example, a subordinate's attitude toward authority figures may bias the subordinate's perception of a boss's acts. As with perceptual measures of other constructs, such as leadership, research addressing the abuse of power must examine subordinate attributes possibly associated with differential per- ceptions of a boss's abuse of power.

Unit norms. In organizations the hierarchical, interpersonal abuse of power occurs at the unit level of analysis as well as the individual level. Because of the importance of power, patterns of abuse lead over time to the formation of unit norms. The frequency and visibility of abusive power acts within a unit give rise to norms about the exercise of power, resulting in some degree of expectation and acceptability. In some orga- nizations the hierarchical abuse of power may become an accepted part of the organizational culture.

Proposition 2: Hierarchical acts of power abuse, undertaken over time in a given organizational unit, lead to the formation of unit norms.

The abuse of power may be a good example of a complex organizational concept virtually requiring multilevel treatment in the organ- izational sciences (Dansereau, Alutto and Yammarino, 1984). The multilevel analysis of power behavior can be used to examine the abuse of power at individual and unit levels.

The process of the abusive exercise of power

While a previously unexamined concept such as hierarchical abuse of power requires the kind of explicit conceptualization presented in Figure 1, further knowledge of such a complex concept is available from a process model. A process model is a linear representation of a set of variables that define a theoretically meaningful sequence of related conditions and actions. A process model in organizational research can convey how indi- vidual attributes and organizational conditions

interact as individuals make decisions and under- take actions that have outcomes. Conger and Kanungo (1877) have demonstrated the utility of process models for power research, and PfefFer (1992) has discussed organizational power in terms of relationships among individual attrib- utes, power sources, situational conditions, and infiuence strategies, similar to Figure 3. Also, Porter, Allen and Angle (1981) developed a power process model incorporating situational conditions, individual attributes, decisions to exert power, influence methods, and outcomes.

In process terms, the hierarchical abuse of power is an instance of the more general hierar- chical exercise of power. The general exercise of power in organizations involves acts by which an individual attempts to infiuence another's behavior, attitudes or outcomes according to par- ticular preferences. The subset of abusive acts of power derives from somewhat distinctive motives and attributes and additionally manifests disre- spect for the other's inherent dignity or dimin- ishes the other's performance or rewards. Figure 3 depicts the process of the abusive exercise of power in organizations.

The process model attempts to delineate indi- vidual motives and attributes, organizational con- ditions, decisions, strategies, and outcomes comprising the abuse of power. According to this model, primary causes of the abusive exercise of power derive from individual powerholders' motives and attributes.

Individual motives and attributes

In addition to using power directly for task accomplishment, powerholders often possess personal motives to exercise power (Miner, 1978). Motives for the interpersonal abuse of power include greater control (Manz and Gioia, 1983; Mechanic, 1962). As Mechanic (1962) indicated, organizational members seek greater control by manipulating the organization's struc- ture. Other motives for abusing power include desire for personal services, personal and/or orga- nizational goal attainment (Kipnis, 1984), expres- sions of loyalty and obedience, and punishment/ favoritism to\vard select individuals. Clearly these

1342 Donald Vredenburgh and Yael Brender

motives are not mutually exclusive. They repre- sent diverse reasons a manager might use discre- tionary power abusively to pursue his or her interests. Figure 3 shove's these motives.

Proposition 3: Managers who abuse power do so in pursuit of select motives.

Some individual attributes increase the likeli- hood of a manager pursuing these motives and abusing power. As shown in Figure 3, a power- holder's high need for power (McClelland, 1965) likely increased the probability of exercising power abusively. More specifically, those with a personalized power need, characterized by little self-control, impulsiveness, emotional immatu- rity, dominance, and manipulativeness, will seek to abuse power as contrasted with those pos- sessing a socialized power need (McClelland, 1965). Another individual attribute pertinent to the interpersonal abuse of power is self-esteem. Bianchard and Peale (1988) suggest that high self- esteem is inversely associated with the unethical use of power, explaining that high self-esteem allows an individual to withstand pressure to do what is popular, expedient or lucrative. Defensive, insecure behavior is less likely when self-esteem is high.

As indicated in the Figure 3 process model, other individual attributes that can increase the probability of a manager abusing power include egocentrism (Schwartz, 1987), limited concern for people (Blake and Mouton, 1964), ethical insensitivity including Machiavellianism (Christie and Geis, 1970), a propensity for risk taking (Porter et al., 1981), and emotionalism. House (1988) indicated the relevance of need for power, self-esteem, and Machiavellianism to the exercise of power.

Emotions, e.g., vindictive anger, compulsive anxiety or represented frustration, can cause abusive acts. Conger and Kanungo (1988) have discussed the pertinence of emotional arousal states to power processes in organizations. Schweiger, Anderson and Locke (1985) have empirically demonstrated the pertinence of emotions in decision making processes, and Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) have asserted the importance of emotional stability to a leader's relationships with subordinates. Of course cog-

nitive and emotional interactions are likely, par- ticularly in risky environments (Grossberg and Gutowski, 1987). Thus Figure 3 includes emo- tionalism as a powerholder attribute pertinent to the abusive exercise of power, and the following proposition summarizes the powerholders' attrib- utes section of the Figure 3 process model.

Proposition 4: Select individual attributes increases the likelihood of an individual manager abusing power.

Organizational conditions

Individual motives and attributes of the power- holding superior are only part of the determi- nants of the hierarchically abusive exercise of power, as depicted in Figure 3. Certain condi- tions in organizational units give rise to decisions or actions involving power. The Figure 3 model presents these organizational conditions in terms of activating conditions and sources of power. McCall (1979) indicated that if there is some ambiguity or discretion about how decisions are made, particularly if important resources are involved, affected individuals will use their power. Organizational conditions common to managerial roles, such as secrecy, means/ends uncertainty) (Pfeffer, 1982), and performance pressure, define activating opportunities for power. While these situational conditions that activate power can result in organizationally func- tional acts, they can also generate dysfunctional and perhaps abusive acts of exercising power. Secrecy in particular is a condition allowing or facilitating the abuse of power because it lessens risk.

Sources of power refer to specific bases of capabilities to provide some performance or resource considered important to the organiza- tion and not otherwise easily available (PfefFer, 1982). Concentrating on structural sources, Astley and Sachdeva (1984) identify hierarchical authority, resource control and network centrality as important sources. Individuals or units will possess power to the extent that they are placed to address important problems facing the orga- nization, control resources valued by others, are

The Hierarchical Abuse of Power in Work Organizations 1343

timely in bringing problems and resources together, are not easily substitutable, and have successfully used their power in the past (McCail, 1979). Yukl and Falbe's (1991) work empirically established the distinction between position sources and personal sources, i.e., sources of power derived from organizational position and those based on an individual's attributes. Power sources usually involve role autonomy and the opportunity to instill dependence within others (Pfeffer, 1981), conditions which are pertinent to the abuse of power.

The capability to abuse power derives from the sources of power pertinent to any exercise of power in organizations and are summarized in Figure 3 in terms of position, resources, personal appeal and past action (McCail, 1979). For some managers the longitudinal exercise of power can lead to the expectation to control others without resistance and to the loss of sensitivity to subor- dinates' conditions and preferences. Kipnis (1972) found that the exercise of power led to devalu- ation of the less powerful and increased feelings of causation by some powerholders.

Proposition 5: Powerholders' motives and individual attributes interact with organi- zational activating conditions and sources of power to frame power abuse decisions.

Decisions, strategies and outcomes

The interaction of managers' power motives and individual attributes with activating conditions and power sources results in powerholders con- fronting decisions, as reflected in the Figure 3 process. These decisions, which are sometimes rather implicit and limitedly considered, concern whether or not to abuse power and which strate- gies to engage (Kipnis, Schmidt and Wilkinson, 1980). Deciding whether or not to abuse power may include a consideration of the possible risk to be incurred, whereby a manager attempts to determine the likelihood of realizing beneficial outcomes rather than costs in a particular cir- cumstance.

Managers may assess subordinates' attributes as possible indicators of likely reactions to abuse

(Loverd, 1989). Such risk considerations would reflect the relational nature of the exercise of power, in that they involve a manager's percep- tions of a particular subordinate's attributes as determinants of actions. Subordinate character- istics such as submissiveness and obedience (Milgram, 1974) might encourage a boss to perceive little risk and act abusively. According to Lukes (1986), some subordinates allow supe- riors to modify the subordinates' desires and beliefs in opposition to their own interests, thereby removing risk for the superior. However, managers abusing power do not always undertake a risk consideration involving possible subordi- nates' reactions.

The manner in which organizational members decide to exercise power is subject to normative influence. Boeker (1989) found institutional forces derived from an organization's founding important for the functioning of power in orga- nizations. Organizational values about the impor- tance of human resources and norms about the exercise of power will affect the extent to which managers exercise power abusively (Loverd, 1989). Figure 3 includes these risk and norm variables.

Proposition 6: Organizational norms and con- siderations of risk can moderate decisions about abusing power.

The Figure 3 process model suggests that the next phase in the abuse of power process involves the selection of particular power strategies. Having decided to abuse power in pursuit of par- ticular motives, powerholders must determine how to proceed, i.e., they must select strategies. Choice of strategies appears contingent on the powerholder's motives and individual attributes as well as his or her power sources, the partic- ular organizational conditions, the pertinent norms, and the target's attributes, as Figure 3 indicates. Kipnis, Schmidt and Wilkinson (1980) and Yukl and Falbe (1990) described interper- sonal influence strategies used in organizations. Some of these strategies would be used by power abusers. They would commonly act through direct pressure, but upward appeal, exchange, ingratiation and inspiration strategies also lend themselves to the abuse of power. Coalition,

1344 Donald Vredenburgh and Yael Brender

rational persuasion and consultation strategies probably do not because of their public or detailed nature.

Proposition 7: Powerholders abuse power through the strategies of direct pressure, upward appeal, exchange, ingratiation and inspiration.

While these influence strategies generally involve direct interaction between powerholder and target, some instances of power abuse do not involve direct interaction. For example an abused individual may remain unaware, at least in the short run, of not having received just rewards in comparison to others.

The powerholder abusing power in pursuit of particular motives presented in Figure 3 views outcomes in terms of those motives. For example the abusive soliciting of loyalty or obedience leads to assessments in terms of those demonstrated behaviors. However not all outcomes of the abusive soliciting of loyalty or obedience leads to assessments in terms of those demonstrated behaviors. However not all outcomes of the abusive exercise of power are intended outcomes. Examples of unintended outcomes include possible changes in interpersonal respect, trust and liking (Kipnis, 1984).

Proposition 8: Outcomes of the abusive exercise of power include unintended ones affecting the quality of interpersonal rela- tionships as well as intended ones that address the powerholder's particular motives.

In addition, the abusive exercise of power affects individual dignity and/or performance or rewards, which are the Figure 1 defining dimen- sions of the interpersonal abuse of power. The dignity and performance/reward outcomes of the exercise of power provide the bases for under- standing the hierarchical abuse of power in organizations.

The ethics of hierarchical power abuse

The possible abuse of power in a society's insti- tutions is an important social issue. Lewin (1945) indicated that a significant contribution social

research can make to society is to provide insight into the legitimate and nonlegitimate aspects of power.

The opportunities and incentives for the abusive exercise of power in organizations suggests that the ethical nature of organizational power deserves analytical consideration. The present conceptualization and model of the abuse of power facilitate that consideration. The extent to which particular acts involving the abusive exercise of power violate ethical criteria deter- mines the ethics of power abuse.

Numerous ethical criteria apply. Manifesting respect for a subordinate's essential human dignity is fundamentally a moral issue, based on the premise that human beings have inherent value as ends in themselves (Heisler and Houck, 1977). If individuals deserve dignity in and of them- selves, workplaces should not allow the manage- rial exercise of power to devalue the human worthiness of a subordinate. Task relevant criti- cism, meritocratic stratification, and hierarchical differentiation need not involve human devalua- tion. Thus the exercise of power becomes uneth- ical when it devalues the essential dignity of human beings.

Another ethical criterion applicable to the exercise of power is individual rights. Employees do not forfeit all rights when accepting volun- tary employment (Molz, 1987). They retain rights to privacy, truthfulness and safety, which acts of power abuse often violate. The right to truthfulness includes access to information about how an employer evaluates and records an employee's performance.

A third relevant ethical criterion is the social contract basis of organizational power. Societies grant work organizations considerable power in return for contributions to the social good and in expectation that organizations will not violate the community's norms and laws. When that power is used socially dysfunctionally, which is what happens when managers interfere with sub- ordinates performing well or receiving deserved rewards, that abusive exercise of power is there- fore unethical. Organizations could perhaps argue in utilitarian terms that abusing employees serves a greater good, in that large numbers of cus- tomers and/or investors benefit. However such

The Hierarchical Abuse of Power in Work Organizations 1345

arguments would require that specific benefits be ex)plicitly and directly traced to specific abusive burdens borne by employees, and then the benefits and burdens could be evaluated. Regardless however, the burdens borne by employees would likely be unethical according to the other criteria discussed here.

Finally, when managers prevent deserved rewards, they violate the ethical criterion of fairness or justice. Work organizations function unethically when managers purposefully behave nonmeritocraticaUy with their subordinates.

Concliasion

The hierarchical, interpersonal abuse of power has received limited research attention, and thus preliminary efforts should emphasize developing a knowledge base through conceptualization and the formulation of general propositions (Langley, 1989). The purpose of this paper has been to advance knowledge of organizational power by focusing conceptually on superiors' abuses of power in relationships with subordinates. The extent and nature of power abuse in organiza- tions is an important issue, and the conceptual- ization, propositions and model offered here should facilitate operationalization and hypoth- esis testing. The paper has also provided prelim- inary consideration of the ethical nature of the hierarchical, interpersonal abuse of power.

The intent here has been to specify the meaning of hierarchical power abuse and to generate a model whose future empirical analysis would add to our understanding of power processes in organizations. The model was con- structed through the integration of diverse indi- vidual, motivational, organizational, decisional and strategic variables discussed in the power literature.

The consideration offered here has conceptu- alized the abuse of power in terms of two dimen- sions, disrespect for individual dignity and interference with job performance or rewards. This conceptualization of the abuse of power is base on two assumptions: (1) The act of hierar- chically exercising power, in both style and sub- stance, inherently possesses the potential to affect

others' sense of dignity, and (2) The rationale for the interpersonal exercise of power in orga- nizations revolves around individual performance. Behavior by a powerholder that reflects disrespect for an individual's inherent human dignity or that interferes with an employee's job performance or acquisition of deserved rewards is abusive according to this conceptualization. While it is an interpersonal phenomenon, the hierarchically abusive exercise of power over time and across dyads can result in the formation of unit norms. Study of the abuse of power requires multilevel treatment.

In order to advance the understanding of the abuse of power, this paper presented a process model. General propositions highlight the process model's primary phases, but the model implic- itly contains many specific hypothesized rela- tionships available for future empirical research. This process model focuses on the convergence of powerholders' particular motives and indi- vidual attributes with organizational activating conditions and sources of power. The interac- tions of these motives, attributes, conditions and sources lead to decisions, strategies and outcomes. This process incorporates emotional as well as rational elements. While a process framework represents the chronological nature of organizational reality, a limitation of a process perspective is its linearity; social reality is not as unidirectional and linear as process models appear to suggest, even with feedback loops.

Early descriptive empirical research should ascertain the actual prevalence of power abuse. If further research shows that the model pre- sented here possesses explanatory utility, consid- erations of preventive actions by organizations can follow. Undertaking empirical research of the abuse of power may prove difficult. However the importance ofthe hierarchical abuse of power for individuals and organizations argues for making this effort.

References

Acton, L.: 1979, The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Oxford University Press, New York) Originated in letter dated April 5, 1887 to Bishop Mandrell Creighton.

1346 Donald Vredenburgh and Yael Brender

Allen, R. and L. Porter: 1983, Organizational Influence Processes (Scott, Foresman, Glenview).

Astley, W. and P. Sachdeva: 1984, 'Structural Sources of Intraorganizational Power: A Theoretical Syn- thesis', Academy of Management Review 9, 104- 113.

Blake, R. and J. Mouton: 1964, The Managerial Grid (Gulf Publishing, Houston).

Bianchard, K. and N. Peale: 1988, The Power of Ethical Management (William Morrow, New York).

Boeker, W.: 1989, 'The Development and Institu- tionalization of Subunit Power in Organizations', Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 388—410.

Brass, D. and M. Burkhardt: 1993, 'Potential Power and Power Use: An Investigation of Structure and Behavior', Academy of Management Journal 36, 4 4 1 - 470.

Cristie, R. and F. Geis: 1970, 'Studies in Machiavellianism' (Academic Press, New York).

Clegg, S.: 1983, 'Organizational Democracy, Power and Participation', in C. Crouch and F. Heller (eds.). International Yearbook of Organizational Democracy (Wiley, New York), pp. 3—34.

Conger, J. and R. Kanungo: 1988, 'The Empower- ment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice', Academy of Management Review 13, 471—482.

Dansereau, R, J. Alutto and F Yammarino: 1984, Theory Testing in Organizational Behavior: The Varient Approach (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs).

Emerson, R.: 1962, 'Power-dependence Relations', American Sociological Review 27, 31—41.

Goleman, D.: December 28, 1986, 'When the Boss is Unbearable', New York Times (New York Times Publishing Company, New York).

Grossberg, S. and W. Gutowski: 1987, 'Neural Dynamics of Decision Making Under Risk: Affec- tive Balance and Cognitive-emotional Interactions', Psychological Review 94, 300-318.

Heisler, W. and J. Houck: 1977, A Matter of Dignity: Inquiries into the Humanization of Work (University of Notre Dame Press, South Bend).

House, R.: 1988, 'Power and Personality in Complex Organizations', in B. Staw and L. Cummings (eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior (JAI Press, Greenwich), pp. 305-357.

House, R. and M. Baetz: 1979, 'Leadership: Some Empirical Generalizations and New Research Directions', in Staw, B. (ed.). Research in Organiza- tional Behavior (JAI Press, Greenwich), pp. 3 4 1 - 423.

Kipnis, D.: 1972, 'Does Power Corrupt?', JoMrna/ or Personality and Social Psychology 24, 33—41.

Kipnis, D., S. Schmidt and I. Wilkinson: 1980,

'Intraorganizational Influence Tactics: Explorations in Getting One's "Way', Journal of Applied Psychology 65, 440-452.

Kipnis, D.: 1984, 'The Use of Power in Organizations and in Interpersonal Settings', in S. Oskamp (ed.). Applied Social Psychology Annual (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs), pp. 179-210.

Kirkpatrick, S. and E. Locke: 1991, 'Leadership: Do Traits Matter?', Academy of Management Executive 5, 48-60.

Kotter, J.: 1985, Power and Influence (Free Press, New York).

Langley, A.: 1989, 'In Search of Rationality: The Purposes Behind the Use of Formal Analysis in Organizations', Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 598-632.

Lewin, K.: 1945, 'The Research Center for Group Dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology', Sociometry 8, 126-136.

Loverd, R.: 1989, 'The Challenge of a More Responsible, Productive Public Workplace', Public Productivity and Management Review 13, 43—59.

Lukes, S.: 1986, Power (New York University Press, New York).

Manz, C. and D. Gioia: 1983, 'The Interrelationship of Power and Control', Human Relations 36, 459-476.

McCall, M.: 1979, 'Power, Authority and Influence', in S. Kerr, S. (ed.). Organizational Behavior (Grid Publishing, Columbus), pp. 185—206.

McClelland, D.: 1965, 'N-achievement and Entre- preneurship: A Longitudinal Study', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1, 389—392.

Mechanic, D.: 1962, 'Sources of Power of Lower Participants in Complex Organizations', Adminis- trative Science Quarterly 1, 349—364.

Milgram, S.: 1974, Obedience to Authority (Harper and Row, New York).

Miner, J.: 1978, 'Twenty Years of Research on Role- motivation Theory of Managerial Effectiveness', Personnel Psychology 31, 739-760.

Mintzboerg, H.: 1983, Power In and Around Organiza- tions (Prentice-Hall, Englewood ClifFs).

Molz, R.: 1987, 'Employee Job Rights: Foundation Considerations', Journal of Business Ethics 6, 449— 458.

Morgan, G.: 1986, Images of Organization (Sage, Newburry Park).

Nord, W : 1978, 'Dreams of Humanization and the Realities of Power', Academy of Management Review 3, 674-678.

Pfeffer, J.: 1981, Power in Organizations (Pitman, Boston).

The Hierarchical Abuse of Power in Work Organizations 1347

PfefFer., J.: 1982, Organizations and Organization Theory (Pitman, Boston).

PfefFer, J.: 1992, Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).

Porter, L., R. Allen and H. Angle: 1981, 'The Politics of Upward Influence in Organizations', in L. Cummings and B. Staw (eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior (JAI Press, Greenwich), pp. 109-150.

Salancik, G. andJ. PfefFer: 1977, 'Who Gets Power- and How They Hold on to It: A Strategic- Contingency Model of Power', Organizational Dynamic 5, 3—21.

Schwartz, H.: 1987, 'On the Psychodynamics of Organizational Totalitarianism', Jowrna/ of Manage- ment 13, 41-54.

Schweiger, D., C. Anderson and E. Locke: 1985, 'Complex Decision Making: A Longitudinal Study of Process and Performance', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36, 245-272.

Terkel, S.: 1972, Working (Pantheon Books, New York).

Tyler, T. and R. Bies: 1990, 'Beyond formal Procedures: The Interpersonal Context of Proce- dural Justice', in J. Carroll (ed.). Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings (Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Hillsdale).

Wrong, D.: 1979, Power (Harper and Row, New York).

Yukl, G. and C. Falbe: 1990, 'Influence Tactics and Objectives in Upward, Downward and Lateral Influence Attempts', Jowma/ of Applied Psychology 75, 132-140.

Yukl, G. and C. Falbe: 1991, 'Importance of Different Power Sources in Downward and Lateral Rela- tions', Jowrna/ of Applied Psychology 76, 416-423.

ZubofF, S.: 1988, In the Age ofthe Smart Machine (Basic Books, New York).

Management Department, Baruch College,

The City University of New York, 17 Lexington Avenue,

New York, New York WOW.