I“. v u
.31.. :
. . {3.1.

4a . . 't
mu'uh

m
3%? a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3...:
2.1x»,

 

 

  

‘ . 311; f

 

 

I? 1..» w;r%9wwgw.#mn

 

3 1293 01405640

lHlllHlIHHIIHllUH“llllHllHlllllllHlllliWILIIHHI

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

MIXED BLESSINGS OF FORMER LEADERS CONTINUED
PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

presented by

Christina L. Haemmerle

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for -

M.A. Psychology

 

 

degree in

gown,”

Major professor

Date (/f/Zl/fl

0-7639 MS U is an Aﬂirmative Action/Equal Opponunily Institution

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your rooord.

‘ TO AVOID FINES roturn on or bdoro date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU It An Nﬂmotlvo Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
WW?

 

MIXED BLESSINGS OF FORMER LEADERS CONTINUED
PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

By

Christina Lynn Haemmerle

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1996

ABSTRACT

MIXED BLESSINGS OF FORMER LEADERS CONTINUED
PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

By

Christina L. Haemmerle

This study explored the relationships of sorority and fraternity leaders’ personal
characteristics, shiﬁs in their organizational status, and their subsequent counter-
productive behavior. It was hypothesized that leaders lower in self-esteem and who were
not active in other organizations or leadership roles would exhibit more counter-
productive behavior aﬁer reverting to member status than those who were higher in self-
esteem.

Data were initially collected from 69 (41 sorority and 28 ﬁ'atemity) leaders when they
were in ofﬁce and again from 45 (24 sorority and 21 fraternity) aﬁer their return to
member status. Questionnaires addressing the general climate of each organization were
also completed on one occasion or the other by 713 sorority and 292 fraternity members.
The hypothesized relationship between self-esteem, involvement in other organizations,
and counterproductive behavior was not supported. Members showed extensive and
unexpected gender differences in their perceptions of organizational climate across
leader status. Attitudinal differences observed while collecting data at these ﬁaternities
and sororities suggested that fraternity participants, who generally depicted their self-
esteem and their organizations more favorably than did the sorority women, may well
have provided less valid data. Limitations of this investigation and implications of the

ﬁndings for related studies were discussed.

71"!

_l

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize those individuals whose help and
guidance has made this effort possible. First and foremost, I would like to thank John
Hurley not only for his support and guidance with the technical aspects of this work, but
also for believing in me and allowing me the opportunity to explore my personal interests
in this area. I would also like to thank Rick DeShon and Norman Abeles for their
constructive comments throughout this entire process. I not only respect these three
individuals, but have also learned a great deal from working with them.

This work would not have been possible without the cooperation and participation of
the sororities and fraternities at Michigan State University. I greatly appreciated their
openness and willingness to participate in my research. I am also indebted to several
colleagues who assisted me with my data collection: Julie Daugherty, Diana Mon‘obel,
Jennifer Paul, and Alison Ward. Thank you for your valuable time and gracious support.

Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge my family, whose constant love,
support, encouragement, and optimism have helped me accomplish the goals I have set
for myself. I thank my parents, Michael and Linda DeLorm, for always believing in me,
even when I did not believe in myself. I am also grateﬁil for my husband, Brian, who
helped me make it through the most dimcult times of this endeavor with his love,

compassion, and humor.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. v
INTRODUCTION
The Leadership Position ................................................................................... 2
Power Bases ...................................................................................................... 2
Ability to Inﬂuence ........................................................................................... 3
Personal Characteristics of the Leader ............................................................. 8
Self-Esteem ...................................................................................................... 9
Former Leaders’ Satisfaction with the Organization ....................................... 11
Goals of the Leader .......................................................................................... 12
Relationship between Leaders and Members ................................................... 12
Hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 14
METHOD
Participants ....................................................................................................... 15
Procedure .......................................................................................................... 15
Materials ........................................................................................................... 18
RESULTS
Counterproductive Behavior Questionnaire ..................................................... 21
Analyses of Hypotheses .................................................................................... 22
Post-Hoe Analyses ............................................................................................ 29
DISCUSSION
Sample .............................................................................................................. 40
Measures ........................................................................................................... 41
Signiﬁcant Findings .......................................................................................... 43
RECOMMENDATIONS
Future Research Implications ........................................................................... 47
LIST OF REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 49

iv

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Item-Total Correlations of the Retained and Excluded Items of the
Counterproductive Behaviors Scale (CPB) ........................................................ 23

Table 2 - Descriptive Statistics for Individual and Group Measures Separately for
all Leaders and Post-Leaders ............................................................................... 25

Table 3 - Product-Moment Correlations among Self-esteem Measures and
Quality of Exchange Scales for all Leaders and Post-Leaders ............................ 27

Table 4 - Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Climate Scales Across Time
for 38 Leaders ...................................................................................................... 28

Table 5 - Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Climate Scales Across Time for
all Members ......................................................................................................... 28

Table 6 - Descriptive Statistics for Individual and Group Measures by Type of
Organization ........................................................................................................ 30

Table 7 - Product-Moment Correlations among Self-esteem Measures and Quality
of Exchange Scales for Sorority Leaders and Post-Leaders ................................ 32

Table 8 - Product-Moment Correlations among Self-esteem Measures and Quality
of Exchange Scales for Fraternity Leaders and Post-Leaders ............................. 32

Table 9 - Product Moment Correlations among Self-esteem Measures and Quality
of Exchange Scales Separately for Leaders and Post-Leaders ............................ 35

Table 10 - Descriptive Statistics on Organizational Climate Scales Across Time. 35

Table 11 - Descriptive Statistics on Organizational Climate Scales Across Time
for Members ....................................................................................................... 38

INTRODUCTION

Diverse organizational climate effects seem associated with former leaders who
remain active participants following the expiration of their terms in major offices.
Organizations that contain this type of role structure include: Sororities and Fraternities,
Project Teams, Nursing Units, Department Chairs (Rotating Chairs every ﬁve years) at
Universities, and some Nonproﬁt Organizations. Former leaders who continue to
participate in such organizations may assist the newer leaders make the transition into
ofﬁce by providing consultation, emotional and technical support, and general guidance.
However, problems may also develop if the former leaders have difﬁculties in
relinquishing the power, control, and prestige associated with their former ofﬁce. These
difﬁculties of adjustment may be manifested in vindictive behaviors toward the new
leaders and/or organization, including: withholding or refusing to share vital information
from the new leader, resisting the new leader’s efforts to make changes in the
organization, spreading rumors and gossip, and forming counterproductive coalitions
within the organization.

Although this phenomena occurs in a variety of organizations, there is little research
or literature that addresses why some former leaders are supportive and others are
resistive toward their successors. This study proposes to examine the interaction

between situational and personal characteristics of leadership transitions in the context of

u.. o

".f{

2

power and inﬂuence models from the organizational literature, personal attributes of the
leader, and related relationship structures. Speciﬁcally, the situation will be deﬁned by
examining the leadership position, power bases, and organizational climate. The
personal characteristics of the leader that will be examined include the leader’s self-
esteem and his or her personal goals for being an officer in the organization.
Additionally, the number of other leadership positions and other activities the leader
participates in will be explored. Also surveyed will be members’ perceptions of their
leaders and organizational climate.

II I l l . E . .

The concept of a position within an organization is described in Oeser and Harary’s
(1962, 1964) and Oeser and O’Brien’s (1967) Structural Role Theory. A "position”
refers to the sociological and psychological characteristics of the person needed to fulﬁll
the position, the relationships this position has with respect to other people and positions,
and the ability of the individual to perform certain tasks required of the position. Their
concept of role combines the following three elements: persons, positions, and tasks.
29mm

Most high ranking positions in organizations allow incumbents access to power
bases and sources of inﬂuence that were previously unavailable. These power bases and
their relationship to a leader’s use of inﬂuence are popular topics in the literature
describing the politics of organizations (Jones, 1984; Kabanoﬁ‘, 1988; Kerr, 1985;
Kochan, Cummings, & Huber, 1976; Lazega, 1990; Raven, 1990, 1992; Smither, 1993;

Yukl, 1989; Yukl & Falbe, 1991). Raven (1990) described six bases of social power and

3
inﬂuence which include: the promise of reward, the threat of pumshmen' t, legitimate
power, expertise power, referent power, and information power. Jones described ofﬁcial
post power as the power a leader has solely due to his/her position (equivalent to Raven’s
legitimate power). Respect power, similar to reverent power, is not dependent on the
formal structural relationship, but is awarded by an individual’s peers.
E l ’l' I I]

A leader can exercise power from any combination of these power bases. Within
sororities and fraternities, the positions of President, Treasurer, Pledge Educator, and
Membership Chairperson are considered the most important positions because of their
potential power. These positions may some of the above-mentioned power bases as
evidenced by their ability to impose punishment (termination of membership, social
probation) when necessary, and the nature of the positions themselves (legitimate
power). Additionally, by working closely with the Advisors and National Headquarters,
and being familiar with the organization’s policies and procedures, the leaders tend to be
perceived as "experts” and the most informed members. Finally, since sororities and
fraternities have memberships comprised of persons with similar demographic
characteristics and peers have selected leaders from within the organization, these
leaders are also perceived to have referent power.

Raven’s (1990) Power/Action Model of Social Inﬂuence outlines the steps that
leaders can take to utilize their power bases. The leader must be motivated to inﬂuence,
assess the available power bases, assess the costs ofdifferent strategies, prepare to use

inﬂuence strategies, choose a mode of inﬂuence, and assess the outcomes of inﬂuence.

l "I. " ‘ . ' f“
_ v
e' -‘ ~
,, o‘ ‘
) ..J
t .
u
.
l
I v . v
I 4 ’.
. I.
l l‘
, . .‘ r
.
I . I A
. . ,. .
I
J . a
v
I I ’ (
.1 ‘ .
.
. l,
v
- . r -
.. ‘ I ’ .
l “
t . v
I
'I e

no“

4

Because of the variety of potential power bases, many different combinations of
inﬂuence strategies can be used. Potential inﬂuence, yet another way to measure power,
is contingent upon characteristics of the leader, the leader’s position, and the leader-
member relationship (Y ukl & Falbe, 1991). The inﬂuence strategies that leaders select
are also related to a leader’s need for independence, power, and self-esteem. Leaders
who have relied heavily on legitimate power and the power to threaten will likely ﬁnd it
difﬁcult to inﬂuence others when they are out of oﬁice and no longer have access to
those power bases.

Additional support for the power bases associated with leadership positions is found
in Structural Role Theory (Oeser & Harary, 1962, 1964). Oeser and O’Brien (1967)
deﬁned three types of relationships: person-task relations, position-task relations, and
task-task relations. Position-task relationships are the most germane to this discussion
because they include the power relationships that are found within organizations. For
example, leadership positions entailing the authority to reward and punish are more
powerful than those lacking these resources. Also, the person who is responsible for the
overall effectiveness of the organization, as evidenced by the number of tasks delegated
to that position, will likely accumulate power and inﬂuence over others in the
organization. Inﬂuence, according to the Structural Role Theory, is also provided
through the assignment structme, which speciﬁes the ways in which a person is required
to interact with others in carrying out the job responsibilities of a speciﬁc position. One
whose position requires him or her to be the organization’s "central" communicator will

be more inﬂuential than someone who is in a more peripheral communicating position.

5

Presidents of sororities and fraternities spend a great deal of time overseeing all functions
of their organizations, paperwork, meetings, subcommittee meetings, and representing
their organizations on the college campus and in the community. The President is
usually the one person that members rely on to receive information regarding everything
that deals with the organization. Consequently, when this term of office expires, it can
be a big adjustment to relinquish these highly visible functions. Some individuals ﬁnd
this adjustment difficult to handle gracefully.

Further evidence for the amount of inﬂuence leaders have is provided by Yukl and
Falbe (1991). Their research identiﬁed two broad categories of inﬂuence: power and
position. Although these are distinct and separate categories, each category contains
several speciﬁc overlapping components. Legitimate power was found to be one of the
most important sources of inﬂuence in both downward and lateral relations.

One theory is directly relevant to the situation that occurs when leaders remain in the
organization after their term is ﬁnished Kabanoff’s (1985, 1988) Potential Inﬂuence
Incongruence (PII) model addresses conﬂicts that arise in the natural course of people
trying to work together towards some common goal. Sororities and fraternities can be as
small as 25 members and as large as 150, who are tenaciously working together to
continue the traditions, maintain membership, and educate new members about their
fraternity heritage. The PII Model argues that .intemal conﬂicts within such
organizations are largely consequences of the unevenly distributed power and inﬂuence
functions. Borrowing from the Structural Role Theory, there are ﬁve sources of

inﬂuence that leaders and members can use. Inﬂuence may be derived from the informal

.‘.

6
relationships between the leader and other members of the group. The legitimate

authority of a leader’s position and the number of tasks allocated to the position (the
greater the number of tasks, the greater the ability to inﬂuence) will also enable the
leader to inﬂuence. The structure of task sequence also gives some members more
inﬂuence than others. For example, if person A performs the initial steps of structuring a
task and persons B and C are assigned to implementation, A will likely have a greater
capacity to inﬂuence the outcomes than will B or C. The concept of "position" also
provides relationships where there may be inﬂuence incongruities. A leader will have
more inﬂuence if perceived to possess a large amount of task relevant ability and also if
assigned to a "central" communication position. The PI] Model states that power is
relational, it does not belong solely to one person (Kabanoff, 1985, 1988). For example,
the past leader can attempt to inﬂuence the new leader directly or indirectly by appealing
to other members. The new leader can also attempt to inﬂuence members, but may have
greater difﬁculty in inﬂuencing former leaders.

Another interesting aspect of Kabanoff’s (1985) PII model concerns one’s
assessment of their potential inﬂuence. People tend to overestimate their potential
inﬂuence because they tend to assess this according to their largest and most unique
inﬂuence base, rather than on those inﬂuence bases that are both relevant and effective in
particular situations. Inﬂated assessments of one’s potential inﬂuence can lead to
conﬂicts within the organization (Kabanoff, 1985; Yukl, 1989). Individuals may attempt
to protect their inﬂuence bases that they perceive to be threatened. For example, the

leader who assesses his or her ofﬁce which entails legitimate authority and power to

7

reward and punish other organization members as their strongest inﬂuence base is likely
to have greater difﬁculty in leaving this oﬁ'rce than those with other power bases.

Conﬂict within organizations may also be explained in terms of goal incompatibility
(Kochan et al., 1976). Subunits of an organization may have goals that are either
unshared or in direct conﬂict with those of other subunits. Kochan et al. described
”operative goals" as those that aim to preserve power. When the President and Executive
Committee of an organization are no longer in ofﬁce, they may try to maintain their
power by being outspoken at meetings, resisting changes attempted by the new leaders,
and directly challenging their successors’ power and authority.

An irrational belief based on a distorted perception of self, misguided entitlement
(Kerr, 1985), may also inﬂuence former leaders’ post-ofﬁce conduct. This theory holds
that individuals may believe that they possess a continuing legitimate right to receive
special privileges and/or mode of treatment when they do not. Three elements are
involved in this mistaken belief: neurotic ambition, a need for perfection, and a need for
vindictive triumph. The latter element may be manifested by unconscious impulses to
frustrate, outwit, and defeat others in personal relationships. Individuals who accept the
false belief of an inﬂated sense of self, will likely believe that they are entitled to being
heated in a special manner. This is especially likely to happen if individuals ﬁnd that the
legitimate source of their former inﬂuence (means of feeling special and being special) is
no longer available. The consequences of misguided entitlement is seen in disturbances
in relationships. When former leaders remain in the organimtion, but feel that they

deservetobetreatedwiththesamerespectandinthesamemanneraswhentheyheld

8

ofﬁce, it will likely strain the relationship between old and new leaders, as well as within
the organization.

Each of these theories help to shed some light on how the potential inﬂuence and
power bases associated with a leadership position can have an eﬁ'ect on both the leader’s
sense of self and their actions in and out of office.

E 1 Cl . . E I I I

With this in mind, another question is: What personality attributes of the individual
contribute to the difﬁculties that some former leaders evidence in relinquishing the
power and inﬂuence associated with their former position? Evolutionary psychologists
holdthatitisaninnatepartofhumannamretowanttodominateothers,belikedby
others, and achieve rank (Smither, 1993). Ashforth and Lee (1990) predicted that leaders
who are more insecure and anxious will be more likely than others to use behavioral
defense mechanisms (i.e., gossiping, resisting, noncompliance, etc.). For example,
former leaders may gain satisfaction and feel better if they engage in gossip that
undermines their successors (Medini & Rosenberg, 1976). Gossip may be one viable
method for former leaders to regain a sense of power and control.

Additionally, work-alienated leaders tend to be cynical about the future use of the
organization and changes to the organization (Ashforth & Lee, 1990). Presidents of
sororities/fraternities tend to be work alienated because they are constantly dealing with
the business of the organization and the members of the organization tend to stop relating
to them as equals, but instead only relate to them as ofﬁcers. After leaving ofﬁce, a

former president may not want anything to do with the organization.

9

The psychological theory of reactance may shed some light onto why some former
leaders are resistant towards the new leaders. Their initial response may be an attempt to
regain control, or at least to appear to, if some signiﬁcant uncontrollable outcome occurs
(Brockner & Elkind, 1985). Even though former leaders are aware that the length of
their term is time-limited and beyond their control, they may attempt to regain control by
behaving counterproductively in the organization.

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem may importantly contribute to former leaders' defensiveness. The power
and inﬂuence of the leadership position may boost leaders with low self-esteem
(Guastello, Rieke, Guastello, & Billings, 1992; Raven, 1990, 1992). Raskin, Novacek,
and Hogan (1991) describe this self-esteem inﬂation as characteristic of individuals who
have low self-esteem, are self-centered, and have a personal investment in defending
themselves against unpleasant self evaluations. This enhancement is directly threatened
when leaders are forced to leave their office (i.e., the term has expired). Former leaders
will likely experience estrangement if their self-esteem was derived largely from the
power and prestige of that ofﬁce. This self—esteem diminishment may lead former
leaders to behave counterproductively within the organization in a misguided effort to
maintain their temporarily enhanced sense of self.

Self-esteem may also inﬂuence the choice of inﬂuence strategy (Raven, 1992). For
example, in a speciﬁc situation leaders with low self-esteem may use coercive power,
even if informational power might be more effective. Coercive power places the leader

in control, while informational power is attributed to the target (member). It is more

10

satisfying for leaders with low self-esteem to believe that they are calling the shots, not
the members. Self-esteem appears to be multidimensional. Global self-esteem (Simpson
& Boyle, 1975) is deﬁned as an overall evaluation of self-worth, while role speciﬁc self-
esteem is the self-evaluation that arises ﬁom one of an individual's many roles in life
(student, friend, daughter, etc.). Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham (1989) have
developed the concept of organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), deﬁned as "the degree
to which organizational members believe that they can satisfy their needs by participating
in roles within the context of the organization" (p. 625). Organizational members with
high OBSE will view themselves as important, meaningful, and having an impact on
their organization. Pierce et al. (1989) advocated that if individuals have an increased
sense of self—esteem in one domain, that this sense of self-worth is likely to spill over into
other domains. Therefore, an individual's organizational based self-esteem is expected to
be positively correlated with her or his global self-esteem. Pierce et al. developed a ten-
item questionnaire which asks respondents to indicate the degree to which they agreed or
disagreed with each statement on a ﬁve-point Likert scale. They also used a modiﬁed
semantic-differential global self-esteem scale addressing work, rather than life,
experiences. This modiﬁed scale was found to correlate signiﬁcantly with Rosenberg's
established global self-esteem scale (r = .63, p < .001). Pierce et al. concluded that
OBSE better predicts an individual's actual behavior in an organization than other self-
esteem measures.

Following Raven (1990, 1992) and Guastello et al.'s (1992) hypotheses, the number

of other organimtions the leader is involved with, either as a member, or as an ofﬁcer,

 

r I

,l
e-t'

ll

11

may also affect how former leaders readjust to becoming a member after leaving office.
If one's sense of self-esteem comes largely from only one ofﬁce, it will be more difﬁcult

to handle the loss of power and inﬂuence than if former leaders are involved with other

organizations which boost their self-esteem.

 

Several of the theories describing leaders’ self-esteem, their ability to inﬂuence, and
their choices of inﬂuence strategies suggest that some leaders may feel less satisﬁed with
their organization after leaving ofﬁce. The inﬂuence strategies leaders select are related
to their need for independence, power, and self-esteem. Those leaders that rely on
legitimate power (high need for independence and power, lower self—esteem) will ﬁnd it
more difficult to inﬂuence others when they can no longer access the authority of their
position (Y ukl & Falbe, 1991). Goal incompatibility within the organization is likely to
arise when the former leaders’ operative goals are aimed at trying to preserve their
power, instead of relinquishing it (Kochan et al., 1976). If the former leaders are
unsuccessful at achieving this goal, they are likely to become frustrated with their
organization.

In addition, the power and inﬂuence of the position may boost leaders with lower
self-esteem (Guastello, et al., 1992; Raven, 1990, 1992). It is also characteristic of
lower self-esteem leaders to inﬂate their assessment of their inﬂuence strategies
(Kabanoff, 1985, 1988). This creates conﬂict in the organization when the leader is
forced to return to member status. When attempts to protect their enhanced self-esteem

and power bases are unsuccessful, the leaders are likely to be discouraged, which may

..
I
t
n
I
A
l
I
I
|
. I
I .a
a a
. .I.
II ‘
y I
I v
4
. 1
a .
r
.0,
I) 1
tr
.\
.V

In
Wu
I A
.
.10
l
I.
. .a
U
I, I
p.
t:
s:
l. J
‘o,
r. v
I
I]
II'. a

12

adversely inﬂuence their perceptions of their organization.
W

Individuals' motivations for deciding to run for an organizational ofﬁce may also
effect behaviors both in and out of that ofﬁce. People may have diverse reasons for
wanting to be an ofﬁcer in an organization. They may believe that they can make
positive changes in the organization. Others prefer social roles that emphasize
dominance and submission and this may be a motivation behind wanting a leadership
position (i.e., President) within an organization (Smither, 1993). Being President of a
Sorority or Fraternity may also be viewed as enhancing a person's self-esteem and feeling
of importance, not only within the organization, but also on campus and in the broader
community. In addition, it places the President in a one-up position from the members of
the sorority or ﬁaternity. Leaders' whose main reason for wanting a leadership position is
the associated power and popularity, will probably have a more difficult time leaving

ofﬁce than those whose goals are less ego-centered.

 

The relationships between leaders and members generally change when former
leaders resume member roles. How former leaders handle this change in relationship is
pertinent to the focus of this study. The Leader Member Exchange Theory (House &
Singh, 1987; Yukl, 1989) states that leaders develop different exchange relationships
over time with members depending on their status of ingroup or outgroup. Lazega (1990)
also points out that a workgroup allegiance competes with an individual's allegiance to

the organization as a whole. Both of these ideas apply to the relationship Presidents have

13

with their Executive Committees. The President and his or her Executive Committee are
an organization's core decision makers. They are forced to self-regulate their own
behaviors and deal with information in a complex manner. For example, they decide
what issues should go before the organization, what changes in policies and procedures
need to be proposed and voted on, etc. The President and Executive Committee are also
responsible for disciplining members and are ultimately held responsible in any legal
matters dealing with the sorority or ﬁatemity. The President and Executive Committee
also band together to initiate changes and withstand resistance from the rest of the
sisterhood/brotherhood. This close relationship may not change when the President and
Executive Committee are no longer in ofﬁce. They may band together as members and
resist their successors' attempts at change or running the organization. According to
Lazega (1990), their allegiance to the organization as a whole will be overshadowed by
their close working relationship while they were in office.

How this workgroup (the President and Executive Committee) inﬂuences members
will likely impw on how the workgroup acts when they are no longer in a leadership
position. Lazega (1990) differentiated between two strategies the workgroups can use:
gaining compliance from members without using the ”authority argument” (tactical
authoritarian relationship) or emphasizing their authority (strategic authoritarian
relationship). Along similar lines, Vertical Linkage Dyed Theory distinguishes between
leadership and supervision. Dansereau, Green, and Haga (1975) found that supervisors
develop different relationship exchanges with their subordinates. In the supervision

exchange, the supervisor can solely rely on the authority of his or her position (similar to

l4

Raven's legitimate authority) to inﬂuence members to perform the desired behaviors. In
the leadership exchange, other potential inﬂuence bases must be used to effect the
members' behaviors. Within the context of sororities and ﬁatemities, it is likely that the
relationships the President and other high-ranking Ofﬁcers have with other ofﬁcers and
members will be characterized by one of these two vertical dyad exchanges. The
President may use his or her referent power (leadership) to inﬂuence an Executive
Committee Ofﬁcer to oversee some project, but use the authority of his or her position
(supervision) to inﬂuence members to participate in a speciﬁc project, such as
philanthropy. If this represents the President's approach to members (in a one-up, one-
down position), it seems likely that he or she will perceive the self as one-down after
leaving this ofﬁce. In contrast, a leader who utilizes a variety of inﬂuential techniques
with others would seem less likely to feel threatened by the potential loss of authority to
inﬂuence others after leaving this ofﬁce.
Mam

Based on the above literature, this study will address differences in the behavior of
former leaders following their term of ofﬁce.

Hypothesis 1: There will be a negative relationship between leaders' self-esteem and

their counterproductive behaviors after leaving ofﬁce. Leaders’ self-esteem will be

measured by the Rosenberg’s (1965) Global Self-Esteem Scale and the

Organizational Based Self-Esteem Scale (Pierce et al., 1989). Former leaders’

counterproductive behaviors will be measured by new leaders’ endorsement of the

following behaviors: resisting policies; directly challenging the authority of the new

f

ofﬁcers; spreading rumors and gossiping about the new ofﬁcers; forming a "block"
against the new ofﬁcers; and other (invited written descriptions).

Hypothesis 2: Lower self-esteem leaders will hold more negative perceptions of
their organization after leaving office than higher self-esteem leaders. The leaders’
perceptions of their organization will be measured by Seers (1989) team-member
exchange quality survey.

Hypothesis 3: There will be a negative relationship between the number of other
organizations and other leadership positions former leaders are involved with and
their counterproductive behaviors in an organization after leaving an important
ofﬁce.

Hypothesis 4: Former leaders who held ego-centric goals for taking ofﬁce will
exhibit more counterproductive post-ofﬁce behaviors in their former organization

than with those who held less ego-centric goals.

METHOD
E . .

Designated leaders from social sororities and fraternities at Michigan State
University were solicited to voluntarily participate in this study. From each
organization's volunteers, members who held the ofﬁces of President, Treasurer,
Membership Chairperson, and Pledge Educator as well as two other "important" ofﬁces
were examined. These other ofﬁcers were determined by asking the current President,

”What do you consider to be the top six positions in your organization?".

15

16

A total of 16 organizations (ten sororities and six fraternities) participated in the
study. Two organizations (sororities) were excluded from the second data collection due
to difﬁculties in scheduling. Sixty-nine leaders (41 sorority and 28 fraternity)
participated in the ﬁrst data collection and 45 of these (24 sorority and 21 ﬁaternity) also
contributed to the second data collection as former leaders. Also involved in this latter
data collection were 73 new leaders (46 sorority and 27 fraternity). Ten new leaders had
also held leader status during the prior data collection. A total of 531 members (378
sorority and 153 fraternity) were involved in the ﬁrst data collection, while 472 members
(335 sorority and 139 fratemity) were involved in the second collection.
Emeritus

A brief presentation of this study was made to representatives of 51 social
ﬁaternities and sororities on the Michigan State University campus. For those
organizations volunteering to participate, the examiner scheduled a time to attend a
meeting of the organization when it seemed likely that a majority of the members would
be present. Two meetings were held with each organization. The ﬁrst meeting was held
in November or December 1994 and the second was held in late February or early March
1995. The second meeting was held approximately four weeks after the new officers
typically began their leadership term.

At the initial, Fall semester, meeting, the President, Treasm'er, Membership, Pledge
Educator (and two other ofﬁcers depending on the organization) independently
completed questionnaires in another room. A packet of materials was given to each

leader with the following instructions: "I am interested in studying leaders of

l 7
organizations like yours, your goals for becoming a leader, and your perceptions of your
organization. Because of their important roles in these organizations, I have chosen the
ofﬁces of President, Treasurer, Membership Chairperson, and Pledge Educator (and two
other offices depending on the organization). I would like you to ﬁll out the following
questionnaires as honestly and as completely as possible. Each person's materials will be
kept fully conﬁdential and I will not disclose your responses and/or comments to anyone.
Please read the cover sheet before you begin.” Members of the same organizations were
also given a packet of materials with the following instructions: ”I am interested in your
perceptions of your organization's ofﬁcers (Presidch Treasurer, Membership
Chairperson, Pledge Educator, and two other officers depending on the organization).
There are separate questionnaires for each ofﬁcer, so please respond with respect to the
position listed at the top of each page. I am also interested in your opinions about the
atmosphere of your organization. You do not have to identify yourself and I pledge to
keep all of your responses entirely conﬁdential. Please read the cover sheet before you
begin.” Each group was monitored either by the examiner or an assistant.

At the following Spring semester meeting, the procedure was changed slightly.
Members were given the same set of materials and instructions as before. The former
leaders were asked to join the examiner in another room. There they received a set of
materials with the following instructions: "Although you have recently completed your
term of ofﬁce, I am interested in your views of how the organization is now running. I
would like you to ﬁll out questionnaires regarding your perceptions of the organization's

atmosphere and it's new leaders. As before, I pledge to keep your response fully

18
conﬁdential. Please read the cover sheet before you begin." The new leaders were also

supplied with an additional set of materials with the following instructions: "Being
leaders of an organization can be difficult at times. Some ﬁnd it difﬁcult to shift from
members to leaders, others have problems in effecting constructive changes in their
organizations, and some ﬁnd it difﬁcult to motivate members. Please ﬁll out the
following questionnaires. As before, I pledge to keep each person's responses entirely
conﬁdential. Please read the cover sheet before you begin."

To facilitate data analyses, the leaders were assigned a code number to identify
which position they held. For example, the President of the ﬁrst organization providing
such data were assigned a code of 01 1, the Treasurer-012, the Membership Chairperson-
013 and the Pledge Educator-014. The names of the leaders were kept separate from all
collected data and used only to identify their response materials. The new leaders at the
follow-up data collection were given the same ID# as the ofﬁcer previous to them, but
with an "2" at the beginning to indicate a new ofﬁcer (i.e., New President of ﬁrst
organization: 2011). The questionnaires ﬁlled out by the members were given an ID# in
the order data was collected from each organization. The ﬁrst sorority or fraternity was
assigned the code number: 01.

Materials

Several questionnaires were administered to both the leaders and the members of the
cooperating sororities and fraternities. The particular instruments differed depending on
member's status within the organization (member, leader, or former leader) and

whether it was the initial or follow-up meeting.

19

1. The initial data collection from leaders required about 20 minutes to complete.
The President, Treasurer, Membership, and Pledge Educator (and two other oﬁicers
depending on the organization) were administered Rosenberg's (1965) Global Self-
Esteem measure and Pierce et al.'s (1989) Organizational Based Self-Esteem (OBSE)
measure. Rosenberg's measure contains ten items that are answered on a ﬁve-point
Likert scale with "1" representing "Strongly disagree" and "5" representing "Strongly
agree". Pierce et al.'s (1989) scale contains the same format and response options. The
internal consistency for Rosenberg's scale ranges from .77 - .88. Rosenberg's self-esteem
scale is correlated signiﬁcantly with the Lerner self-esteem scale (r = .75; Blascovich &
Tomaka, 1991 ). Blascovich and Tomaka also found that Rosenberg's self-esteem scale
was not importantly related to such variables as gender (1 = .10), age (I = .13), marital
status (I = .17), or grade point average (3 = .01). The internal consistency of the OBSE
scale ranges from .86 - .91 (Pierce et al.). Additionally, the OBSE scale correlated
signiﬁcantly with both Rosenberg's self-esteem scale (I = .54, p < .01) and other global
self-esteem measures (r = .48, p < .01) for a sample of evening business graduate
students (Pierce et al.). Pierce et al. also found that the OBSE loaded much higher on
the self-esteem factor (r = .79) than the affect factor (r = .21) on the Rosenberg self-
esteem scale. The RSE and the OBSE appear to be reasonably reliable and valid.

Also administered to leaders was a short questionnaire containing open-ended items
regarding the number of other activities the leader was involved with, as well as goals for
running for ofﬁce, and a measure of organizational climate. Adapted from Seers (1989)

team-member exchange quality survey, this climate inventory addresses three separate

20

factors: the quality of exchange relationships between members, effectiveness of
meetings, and cohesiveness of the organization. Its' 21 items provide response options on
a 7-point Likert scale with ”1" representing ”Strongly disagree" and "7" representing
"Strongly agree". Seers performed a principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation
to determine what factors comprised a reliable organizational climate scale and

identiﬁed three factors: the quality of exchange relationships with other members
(coefﬁcient alpha = .83), the effectiveness of meetings (coefﬁcient alpha = .84), and
cohesiveness of the organization (coefﬁcient alpha = .7 7). The interfactor correlations
ranged from .43 to .53 (Seers).

2. Members' initial data collection also required about 20 minutes. Each member
was administered the organizational climate measure.

3. Post-leadership data collection required 20 minutes to complete. The leaders
who were in ofﬁce during the fall semester were out of ofﬁce in the spring semester.
The former leaders were re-administered the OBSE, but were requested to respond
according to how they now feel as members, not as leaders. They were also administered
the organizational climate measure.

4. Follow-up data collection for members. The members of the organization were
given exactly the same materials as before.

5. Follow-up data collection for the new leaders required 20 minutes to complete.
The new leaders that had taken over (President, Treasurer, Membership Chairperson,
Pledge Educator, and two other ofﬁcers depending on the organization) were given the

organizational climate measure and a series of open and close-ended questions regarding

their experiences of being an ofﬁcer for the past few months. Endorsed by the new
leaders to provide an index of the former leaders' counterproductive behaviors (CPB) was
the sum of their responses to the following items: resisting policies; directly challenging
the authority of the new officers; spreading rumors and gossiping about the new ofﬁcers;
forming a "block” against the new ofﬁcers; and other (with a written explanation).

Casual observations during the data collection process suggested attitudinal
differences between sororities and fraternities. The sorority participants appeared to
respond to the questionnaires more seriously than did the ﬁ'aternity members. Sorority
leaders were often helpful in maintaining a quiet atmosphere and reminded their
members to be quiet until everyone was done. The sorority leaders were also very
helpful in tracking down former ofﬁcers absent from the second data collection. The
fraternity participants, on the other hand, appeared to be less serious as evidenced by
their comments and extensive light-hearted conversations while ﬁlling out these
questionnaires. The author gained the impression that the fraternity members oﬁen
wanted to favorably impress her and they often inquired about the other fratemities in the
study and what they were like.

RESULTS

This inventory asked the new leaders for their perceptions concerning the adequacy
of their training, the support and/or interference they had received from the former office
holder and members, concrete behaviors by the former leaders that suggested resistance,

acceptance of a new leader by the former leader and members, and the new leaders'

21

-/l‘4

22

acceptance of a new leader by the former leader and members, and the new leaders'
reasons for taking ofﬁce.

Derived from the researcher’s experience as a sorority ofﬁcer and related intuitions,
the following ﬁve forms of counterproductive behaviors of the former leaders: forming a
"block" against the new ofﬁcers, resisting new policies, gossiping or spreading rumors
about the new oﬁicers, directly challenging the new ofﬁcers’ authority, and others
(invited written descriptions) were initially used to assess the counterproductive conduct
of new leaders. However, the results of statistical analyses of this a priori
counterproductive behavior index were unclear. The entire counterproductive
questionnaire was then reviewed and only those items that intercorrelated appreciably
were retained in the revised CPB index (CPB—r). The item-total correlations of all 20
items from the CPB-r index are listed in Table 1. These items appear to be addressing
productive behavior, but the ﬁrst 13 of the 14 retained items were reverse scored to yield
the counterproductive behavior index. A subset of 14 of the original 20 items, as shown
in Table 1, yielded an internal consistency of .84. The discarded items, also shown in
Table 1, largely concerned blatantly counterproductive behaviors.
W

It was not possible to collect complete data from everyone at both data collections.
Although 69 leaders participated at the ﬁrst data collection, only 63 of these participated
in the second collection. All ﬁndings are based upon the maximum available data.

Descriptive statistics for the individual and group measures for all leaders are

presented in Table 2. Two of these variables, the number of other organizations and

II A
t‘
1.
It:
i.
I
.0
t
i
l
u
v
I.
.
.
,
c.
3
,
f.
it
.a
I
. J
’1’

 

Table 1
HH' 0.3. .Ut' .3301 9 I" :'.3"'1' 5" . '31. .‘H‘ 0 II' I 1.9"") I. '

W

Retainedltmns
Amount of support from former officer .73
Former officer is willing to listen .61
Rate the extent of your training .59
Former ofﬁcer supports my actions, decisions .59
Former officer offers advice when asked .55
Former officer does not interfere with my duties .50
Rate your preparation for taking ofﬁce .50
Former ofﬁcer answers questions regarding my ofﬁce .50
I was explained potential problem areas .44
l was shown the paperwork and forms .41
Former ofﬁcer went over ofﬁce responsibilities .41
Did you receive any type of training .40
Former ofﬁcers receptive to and acceptive of changes .39
Former ofﬁcers resistant to changes .33

Exelndedltems
Who do you feel gives you the most grief at meetings .21
Former leaders forming a "block" against new ofﬁcers .18
Former leaders spreading rumors and gossiping .11
Former leaders resisting new policies .10
Former leaders directly challenging authority .05

Other (examples of former leaders' behaviors) .02

24
other leadership positions the leader was involved with, yielded very skewed data. The

leaders were requested to list the other organizations and leadership positions in which
they were currently involved. The majority (52%) reported being involved with merely
one or no other organizations aside from their fraternity or sorority. The remaining
leaders (48%) reported involvement with two to nine other organizations. The vast
majority of leaders (93%) reported being involved with either one or no other leadership
positions. Only 7% reported holding from two to six other leadership positions in other
organizations at the time of the initial data collection. A third variable, reason for taking
ofﬁce, also appeared to yield dubious data. The leaders’ reasons for taking office were
scored by the researcher as being either egocentric (score of 0) or less egocentric (score
of 1). Only 22% (15 of 69) of the leaders were judged as having egocentric reasons for
taking ofﬁce.

Before examining differences in the leaders’ subsequent behavior, the associations
between the three measures of self-esteem (RSE, OBSEL, and OBSEM) were
ascertained. A positive correlation between RSE and OBSEL (r = .52, p < .001, H = 69)
suggested that these scales addressed similar constructs. This association was not
signiﬁcantly different among those 43 leaders who contributed to both data collections
(leader status r = .53; post-leader status I = .29, p < .06) when tested using Fisher's r to z
transformation. The two leader self-esteem measures (RSE and OBSEL) had only weak,
but divergent associations with the CPB-r index. The correlation (.07) of RSE with CPB-
r was nonsigniﬁcant, whereas the parallel OBSEL and CPB-r correlation of -.17 (p < .18,

N = 63) was in the predicted direction and mildly stronger. However, the difference

25

 

 

Table 2
Wars
Mean SD M

Leaders
RSE 42.26 5.07 69
OBSEL 43 .97 4.54 69
CPB 8.00 4.68 63
ORGS l .84 1.81 69
LPOS .52 1.07 69
REASON .78 .42 69
COH 21.32 4.20 66
MB 31.58 5.88 66
QER 54.39 7.40 66

East-Jam
RSE 42.56 5.29 43
OBSEL 44.42 4.51 43
OBSEM 45.84 5.89 43
CPB 7.21 3.85 39
COH 21.38 3.90 37
MB 32.78 4.92 37
QER 55.70 9.30 37

 

RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, OBSEL = Organizational Based Self-Esteem as
Leader, OBSEM = Organizational Based Self-Esteem as Member, CPB ==
Counterproductive Behaviors, ORGS = Number of Organizations involved with, LPOS =
Leadership Positions, REASON = Reason for taking office, COH = Cohesiveness, ME =
Meeting Effectiveness, QER = Quality of Exchange Relationships.

26

between these two correlations did not approach statistical significance.

A preliminary analysis of the Seers (1989) team-member exchange quality survey
conﬁrmed the utility of the three previously established scales (Meeting Effectiveness,
Cohesiveness, and Quality of Exchange Relationships). An internal consistency analysis
of the present data yielded the following alpha coefficients: Meeting Effectiveness = .79
(6 items), Cohesiveness = .78 (4 items), and Quality of Exchange Relationships = .74 (11
items).

Scores on the latter scales were then correlated with leaders’ self-esteem scores, as
shown in Table 3. As anticipated, the RSE correlated positively and signiﬁcantly with
leaders’ Meeting Effectiveness and Cohesiveness scores. Aﬁer most had reverted to
member status, these correlations remained positive, but only that with Cohesiveness
remained signiﬁcant. For the 66 leaders, the OBSEL index correlated positively (r’s
from .42 to .63) with each organizational climate scale in relationships that tended to
decline (r’s from .16 to .42) among the subset of 38 post-leaders. The correlation
between Meeting Effectiveness and the OBSE index across leader status declined
signiﬁcantly when tested using the r to z transformation (z = 2.35, p < .05).

To identify any noteworthy changes in the means of the quality survey scores from
leader to post-leader status among those 38 leaders who participated in both data
collections, t-tests were conducted as shown in Tables 4 and 5 for both leader and
member-based data. None of the leader-based means differed signiﬁcantly.

The members also rated their perceptions of the organizational climate across leader

status. In contrast to the leaders, the mean scores for members registered modest, but

26

between these two correlations did not approach statistical signiﬁcance.

A preliminary analysis of the Seers (1989) team-member exchange quality survey
conﬁrmed the utility of the three previously established scales (Meeting Effectiveness,
Cohesiveness, and Quality of Exchange Relationships). An internal consistency analysis
of the present data yielded the following alpha coefﬁcients: Meeting Effectiveness = .79
(6 items), Cohesiveness = .78 (4 items), and Quality of Exchange Relationships = .74 (11
items).

Scores on the latter scales were then correlated with leaders’ self-esteem scores, as
shown in Table 3. As anticipated, the RSE correlated positively and signiﬁcantly with
leaders’ Meeting Effectiveness and Cohesiveness scores. After most had reverted to
member status, these correlations remained positive, but only that with Cohesiveness
remained signiﬁcant. For the 66 leaders, the OBSEL index correlated positively (r’s
from .42 to .63) with each organizational climate scale in relationships that tended to
decline (r’s from .16 to .42) among the subset of 38 post-leaders. The correlation
between Meeting Effectiveness and the OBSE index across leader status declined
signiﬁcantly when tested using the r to z transformation (z = 2.35, p < .05).

To identify any noteworthy changes in the means of the quality survey scores from
leader to post-leader status among those 38 leaders who participated in both data
collections, t-tests were conducted as shown in Tables 4 and 5 for both leader and
member-based data. None of the leader-based means differed signiﬁcantly.

The members also rated their perceptions of the organizational climate across leader

status. In contrast to the leaders, the mean scores for members registered modest, but

”d

27

 

 

RSEQBSEL QBSEMMEQQHQER

 

RSE .52" - .38” .25‘I .08
OBSEL .54" - .63” .42“ .42"

OBSEM .30 .46" - - -

ME .15 .42" .05 .6l""I .57"
COH .40” .35* .30 .50" .72"
QER -.07 .16 -.02 .62" .32"I

 

ME = Meeting Effectiveness, COH = Cohesiveness, QER = Quality of Exchange
Relationships.

Data for 66 leaders are above the diagonal; data for 38 post-leaders are below it.

*p < .05, two-tailed test. ”p < .01, two-tailed test.

28

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4
’r' mm. ‘ ‘1 0 .1 l N we .‘ a I u' "t:
For All Organizations

Scale M SD t-value

Meeting Effectiveness
Leader 32.29 5.76 -.43
Post-Leader 32.81 4.85

Cohesiveness
Leader 22.08 3.93 1.27
Post-Leader 20.92 4.03

Quality of Exchange Relationships
Leader 55.34 6.50 -.70
Post-Leader 56.39 6.66

Table 5

Dr ‘. cm ' .: IT! 0 Cu: - ' 1.. u 2. u: .3 so. u' u ' u t.' K

For All Organizations

Scale M SD t-value

Meeting Effectiveness
Leader(N=504) 31.51 7.15 1.13
Post-Leader (N = 444) 31.01 6.39

Cohesiveness
Leader 22.36 4.67 4.31 "
Post-Leader 21.03 4.80

Quality of Exchange Relationships
Leader 54.38 8.31 2.58”
Post-Leader 52.98 8.34

 

" p < .01, two-tailed test.

29
signiﬁcant declines, in their later scores for both the Cohesiveness and Quality of

Exchange Relationships scales. Thus, shortly after the installation of the new leaders,
members viewed their organizations as somewhat less cohesive and less satisfying.

Relevant to the third hypothesis, the correlations of CPB-r with the number of other
organizations and other leadership positions in which the leaders participated in were
consistently faint (r = -.05, r = -.08, each N = 63). The fourth hypothesis examined the
relationship between the leaders' reasons for taking ofﬁce (egocentric versus less
egocentric) and CPB-r. The correlation for all leaders was also notably weak (r = -.07, N
= 63).
W

Post hoc analyses were conducted for each hypothesis to determine if there were
signiﬁcant differences between the leaders of the sororities and fraternities. Descriptive
statistics are presented in Table 6. I-tests were conducted to determine if these variables
diﬁ‘ered signiﬁcantly by gender. The fratemity leaders scored signiﬁcantly higher than
sorority leaders by both self-esteem measures (RSE t = 3.00 and OBSEL t = 2.63, p <
.01), the number of other leadership positions involved with (t = 3.02, p < .01), and the
Meeting Effectiveness scale (1 = 3.71, p <.001). The post-leaders’ means had similar
differences for RSE, OBSEM, Cohesiveness, and Meeting Effectiveness (t = 3.32, t=
2.82, t = 2.91, and t = 2.38, all p’s < .05, respectively). Although not signiﬁcantly
different, the fraternity leaders and post-leaders obtained greater CPB-r scores compared
to their sorority counterparts.

Relevant to the relationship between leaders’ self-esteem scores and

30

 

 

Table 6
Len. H! ‘ .=I., O. 0 t' ' .1. :1. M0 l \1‘. l' o 10; 0 01°41“:
Sorority Fraternity

Mean SD M Mean SD N
Leaders
RSE 40.83 5.21 41 44.36 4.10 28
OBSEL 42.83 4.90 41 45.64 3.40 28
CPB 7.90 5.12 41 8.18 3.84 22
ORGS 1.63 1.46 41 2.14 2.22 28
LPOS .22 .42 41 .96 1.50 28
REASON .83 .38 41 .71 .46 28
COH 20.78 4.15 41 22.20 4.21 25
LE 29.66 5.59 41 34.72 5.00 25
QER 54.15 7.94 41 54.76 6.58 25
Rest:Leaders
RSE 40.42 5.50 24 45.26 3.59 19
OBSEL 43.29 4.91 24 45.84 3.58 19
OBSEM 42.75 6.68 24 47.47 3.27 19
CPB 6.33 3.75 24 8.31 3.77 16
COH 19.78 3.85 23 23.33 3.37 15
ME 31.39 4.69 23 35.00 4.39 15
QER 55.96 6.62 23 55.13 12.40 15

 

RSE = Rosenberg SelfrEsteem Scale, OBSEL = Organizational Based Self-Esteem as
Leader, OBSEM = Organizational Based Self-Esteem as Member, CPB =
Counterproductive Behaviors, ORGS = Number of Organizations involved with, LPOS =
Leadership Positions, REASON = Reason for taking ofﬁce, COH = Cohesiveness, ME =
Meeting Effectiveness, QER = Quality of Exchange Relationships.

31

counterproductive behaviors (CPB-r), neither the RSE scores of the 41 sorority nor of the
22 fraternity leaders were appreciably associated with their counterproductive behaviors
(respective [’3 of .02 and .19). Although in the direction predicted, the sorority and
ﬁaternity leaders OBSEL scores also had only weak associations with CPB-r (r’s of -.19
and -.16, respectively).

The 41 sorority leaders’ OBSEL scores correlated signiﬁcantly with each team-
member exchange quality survey scale and the RSE had parallel but weaker associations,
as shown in Table 7. Similar to the all leader data in Table 3, the correlations between
Meeting Effectiveness and the OBSE index across leader status differed signiﬁcantly
among the subset of 23 sorority leaders (2 = 2.11, p < .05).

For all 25 fraternity leaders, the parallel ﬁndings, given in Table 8, were quite
diﬂ‘erent. The RSE correlated signiﬁcantly with Cohesiveness and the OBSEL correlated
positively with each exchange quality survey scale (r’s from .30 to .58). Among the
subset of 15 who provided data on both occasions, the relationship of RSE with
Cohesiveness was weaker, but not statistically different. The post-leader OBSEM
responses also associated negatively with Meeting Effectiveness, as did the parallel,
although weaker, associations of OBSEM with Cohesiveness and Quality of Exchange
Relationships. The 15 fratemity post-leaders also perceived the effectiveness of their
meetings to be quite different from when they were in ofﬁce, as shown by the signiﬁcant
difference in the correlations of Meeting Effectiveness with OBSEL (r = .14) and
OBSEM (r = -.56; z = 2.68, p < .05).

There were also noteworthy gender-based differences between how sorority and

32

 

 

Table 7
’um ‘U'tt‘l .Il‘ 29H. PIIH' ‘ ."131‘" U’-, .1' el' .15 .\ ‘ . lit"
SealesforSerorimLeadersandPrzsﬂeaders
RSE QBSEJ. OBSEM ME COH QER
RSE .45'M - .27 .11 .11
OBSEL .46“ - .59" .38” .47”
OBSEM .09 .45* - - -
ME .10 .44* .00 .47" .60”
COH .32 .30 .31 .36 .72"
QER .04 .28 .23 .73” .59"

 

Data for 41 sorority leaders are above the diagonal; data for 23 sorority post-leaders are
below it.

 

 

Table 8
30.0 r.\1Hl'l OI'aOI :IHl' ‘_ ‘ "ll \1’i. r' 1H .1.=\' .l:l°'
WW
RSE QBSEL QESEM ME 933 QER
RSE .56" - .33 .43"I -.02
OBSEL .52“ - .58" .45"I .30
OBSEM .42 .05 - - -
ME -.29 .14 -.56" .85“l .62“l
COH .10 .13 -.40 .51"I .71"
QER -.20 .13 -.38 .74Ml .23

 

Data for 25 fratemity leaders are above the diagonal; data for 15 fraternity post-leaders
are below it.

ME = Meeting Effectiveness, COH = Cohesiveness, QER = Quality of Exchange
Relationships.

*9 < .05, two-tailed test. "p < .01, two-tailed test.

33

fraternity leaders and post-leaders viewed their organizations. The fraternity leaders
associated the Cohesiveness and Meeting Effectiveness measures more strongly than the
sorority leaders, as shown in Table 9A (z = 2.78, p < .05). However, this difference
largely diminished when the leaders reverted to post-leader status.

Although the relationships of the RSE and OBSEL scores with the organizational
climate measures did not differ signiﬁcantly between sorority and fratemity leaders, their
parallel post-leadership data yielded signiﬁcant gender differences. Given in Table 9B,
the correlations of OBSEM with Cohesiveness and Quality of Exchange Relationships
differed signiﬁcantly (Z = 2.04, z = 2.63, respective p’s < .05, r to z transformation). The
difference between the correlations of OBSEM with Meeting Effectiveness only
approached significance. This suggests that the sorority and fraternity post-leaders held
different perceptions of the cohesiveness of their organizations and quality of their
exchange relationships. Additionally, all six correlations of the self-esteem measures
with the quality exchange scales were more positive among the sorority post-leaders.

Given in Table 10, t-tests were also conducted to identify possible gender—based
organization differences, as well as inns-organization differences across leader status.
The fratemity leaders and post-leaders consistently depicted their organizations more
positively than their sorority peers, especially for Meeting Effectiveness. A similar
difference in means for the Cohesiveness scale was obtained only at post-leader status.
Based exclusively on the data from those leaders who contributed on each occasion,
there were no signiﬁcant differences between sorority leaders and post-leaders. Nor did

the similar mean scores of the 15 fraternity leaders differ signiﬁcantly on any exchange

34

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9
'dt'.‘ ‘l'U‘ltt'vH OH‘ 1300‘ ilHl' ‘ "1.'v.'ll \1‘. .|"t~ 1H .1.- .8 0 . In!"
WW
A: Sorority vs. Fraternity Leaders

RSE OBSE-r. ME CQH QER
RSE .45“I .27 .11 .11
OBSEL .51" .59M. .38” .47"
ME .33 .58" .47” .60“
COH .43“ .45‘ .85" .72”
QER -.02 .30 .61“ .71" "'
Data for 41 sorority leaders are above the diagonal; data for 25 fraternity leaders are
below it.

B: Sorority vs. Fraternity Post-Leaders

RSE QBSEL QBSEM ME 12911 QER
RSE .46" .09 .10 .32 .04
OBSEL .52‘ .45" .44" .30 .28
OBSEM .42 .05 .00 .31 .23
ME -.29 .14 -.56"' .36 .73”
COH .10 .13 -.40 .51" .59”
QER -.20 .13 -.38 .74" .23

 

ME = Meeting Effectiveness, COH = Cohesiveness, QER = Quality of Exchange

Relationships.

Data for 23 sorority post-leaders are above the diagonal; data for 15 fraternity post-

leaders are below it.

‘p < .05, two-tailed test. ”p < .01, two-tailed test.

35

 

 

 

M SD S-F revalue
Leaders
Meeting Effectiveness
Sororities (N = 23) 30.48 5.36 -2.58"
Fraternities (N = 15) 35.07 5.38
Cohesiveness
Sororities 21.65 3.80 -.82
Fraternities 22.73 4.1 8
Quality of Exchange Relationships
Sororities 55.09 6.69 -.30
Fraternities 55.73 6.41
Bastieaders
Meeting Effectiveness
Sororities (H = 23) 31.39 4.69 -2.38"'
Fraternities (N = 15) 35.00 4.39
Cohesiveness
Sororities 19.78 3.85 -2.28*
Fraternities 22.67 3.78
Quality of Exchange Relationships
Sororities 55.96 6.16 -.50
Fraternities 57.07 6.90

(table continues)

36
Table 10 (cont’d).

 

M SD S-F t-value

 

SereritiesDnlx (N = 23)
Meeting Effectiveness
Leader 30.48 5.36 -.62
Post-Leader 3 1 .39 4.69
Cohesiveness
Leader 21 .65 3.80 1 .66
Post-Leader 19.78 3.85
Quality of Exchange Relationships
Leader 55.09 6.69 -.44
Post-Leader 55.95 6.61
Eratemitiesﬂnlx (N = 15)
Meeting Effectiveness
Leader 35.07 5.38 .04
Post-Leader 35.00 4.39
Cohesiveness
Leader 22.73 4.18 .05
Post-Leader 22.67 3.78
Quality of Exchange Relationships
Leader 55.73 6.41 -.55
Post-Leader 57.07 6.90

 

‘p < .05, two-tailed test. ”p < .01, two-tailed test.

37
quality survey scale.

Fraternity and sorority members registered similar but more general differences in
Meeting Eﬂ‘ectiveness and Cohesiveness as shown in Table 11. Again the fratemity
participants generally rated their organizations more favorably across leader status.
Compared to the fraternity members, sorority members viewed their meetings as less
effective and their organizations as less cohesive both when the leaders were in ofﬁce
and when they reverted to member status. Additionally after their leaders became post-
leaders, the sorority members perceived their organizations to be less cohesive, while the
fraternity members viewed their meetings to be less effective and the quality of their
exchange relationships less satisfying.

Gender differences were also found relevant to CPB-r and other leadership positions.
For the 41 sorority leaders, the relationship between the number of other leadership
positions and CPB-r was contrary to the direction predicted (r = .26, p < .11, two-tailed
test). For the 22 fraternity leaders, however, the association between other leadership
positions and CPB-r approached signiﬁcance in the predicted direction (r = -.38, p < .08)
and the difference between these two correlations was statistically signiﬁcant (2 = 2.37,
p < .05). The association of CPB-r with the number of other organizations involved with
for the 41 sorority leaders was negligent (r = .01, p < .95), but slightly in the predicted
direction for the 22 fraternity leaders (1: = -.l6, 3: < .48).

The relationship between CPB-r and leaders' stated reason for taking ofﬁce was
similar across organizations. This association was nearly non-existent for sorority

leaders (r =.= .03, p < .85) and only slightly stronger in the predicted direction for the

 

. . u
all t
n .
Q I
r v
7 ' I
. . r r
u l
.-
‘. y .
, . o
I
u u
r
r I
In »
I . . .
'
. at l
o
I! . . .
r. t 1
t . .
r l
0', . l.
. 1 r
r
u 0 f .
J ,
t

I
. I1
.
. n
a
.. n
01
l
e r
.0.
I
t.
v t

38

 

 

Table 11
Luru‘ .rl ° ”Ow-.1...” H" r. o u‘ o t1'llor‘vlh
M SD S-F t-value
Leaders
Meeting Effectiveness
Sororities (N = 357) 29.91 7.09 -8.36"
Fraternities (N = 147) 35.40 5.66
Cohesiveness
Sororities 21.89 4.72 -3.51"
Fraternities 23.48 4.38
Quality of Exchange Relationships
Sororities 53.93 8.28 -l .89
Fraternities 55 .46 8.3 1
murders
Meeting Effectiveness
Sororities (N = 318) 30.00 6.49 -5.49M
Fraternities (N = 126) 33.57 5.37
Cohesiveness
Sororities 20.46 4.83 -4.07"”"
Fraternities 22.48 4.42
Quality of Exchange Relationships
Sororities 52.85 8.61 -.55
Fraternities 53.33 7.61

(table continues)

 

fv

39

Table 11 (cont’d).

 

 

M SD S-F t-value
S . . D 1
Meeting Effectiveness
Leader (11 = 357) 29.91 7.09 -.16
Post-Leader (N =318) 29.99 6.49
Cohesiveness
Leader 21.89 4.72 3.91 “
Post-Leader 20.46 4.83
Quality of Exchange Relationships
Leader 53.93 8.28 1.67
Post-Leader 52.85 8.61
E . . D l
Meetrn' g Effectiveness
Leader (N, = 147) 35.40 5.66 2.73”
Post-Leader (N = 126) 33.57 5.37
Cohesiveness
Leader 23.48 4.38 1.88
Post-Leader 22.48 4.42
Quality of Exchange Relationships
Leader 55.46 8.31 2.20"'
Post-Leader 53.33 7.61

 

'p < .05, two-tailed test. ”p < .01, two-tailed test.

fraternity leaders (1; = -.29, p < .19).

DISCUSSION
Sample

Participation of the eight sororities and six fraternities represented 27% of all Greek
organizations at Michigan State University (MSU). The ﬁndings of this study are likely
more representative for sororities since a greater proportion of all MSU sororities (3 8%)
than fraternities (20%) were included. The means and standard deviations obtained by
the sorority and fraternity leaders and members for the team-member quality exchange
survey and self-esteem measures were found comparable to those reported in previous
studies (Pierce et al., 1989, 1993; Seers, 1989).

Attitudinal differences were observed when the author visited these organizations to
collect data. The atmosphere during sorority data collection tended to be more serious
than that at the ﬁatemities. Sorority leaders oﬁen helped the researcher maintain a quiet
atmosphere while their members completed these questionnaires. If there was talking or
whispering among members, the leaders would often say "Quiet, please," or "Shhh".
Compared to the sorority participants, the fratemity members seemed to be in a hurry to
complete the questionnaires. There also tended to be extensive light-hearted
conversations as fraternity members would often comment aloud about a particular word
or item found in these questionnaires. In addition, the fratemity leaders were less helpful

in reminding their members to remain quiet. The author gained the impression that the

40

41

fraternity members were trying to impress her favorably and unlike the sororities,
fraternity members often inquired about the other participating fraternities.

Sororities and fraternities have a role structure different from that of many other
organizations. They usually have an established term of office, typically of one year or
two semesters. Consequently, there is regularly expected turnover within the
organization. Usually members are elected to become ofﬁcers (such as President,
Treasurer, Pledge Educator, and Rush Chair) during the end of their sophomore or
beginning of their junior year. Consequently, former ofﬁcers often remain in the
organization as a member after his/her term of oﬁice has ended or he/she may shift to
another leadership position. Other organizations that share a common leadership and
role structure include: Project Teams, Nursing Units, Department Chairs (Rotating
Chairs every ﬁve years) at Universities, and some Nonproﬁt Organizations. The present
ﬁndings cannot be generalized to other organizations where the term of leadership is
open-ended or the leader does not remain with the organization after ending a relatively
short term of ofﬁce.

Memrres

Finding established measures that address counterproductive behavior within an
organization proved more diﬂieult than expected. The author found it necessary to
develop questionnaires assessing how new leaders perceived the behavior of their
predecessors. Initially, I thought that an index of the former leaders' counterproductive
behaviors would be captured by relatively overt items, such as ”former ofﬁcers formed a

"block" against the new ofﬁcers", "former ofﬁcers directly challenged the authority of the

42

new ofﬁcers", "former ofﬁcers were spreading rumors or gossiping about their
successors", etc. However, the initial data analyses revealed only very weak associations
between this index of counterproductive behavior and the other variables. A
reconsideration of the dependent measure based on the present data led to a revision of
the counterproductive behaviors index. Those items that correlated most weakly with the
others were deleted, including all ﬁve of the original items, to provide an index with
adequate internal consistency.

The 14 retained items generally represented less obvious modes of
counterproductive behavior. These behaviors seem more socially acceptable and were
probably easier for the new leaders to identify as compared to the more obvious, overt
counterproductive behaviors. Furthermore, the newly elected leaders probably wanted to
present themselves and their organizations favorably. These individuals were probably
more invested in, and more strongly identiﬁed with, their organization than either
members or former leaders.

It was also difﬁcult to ﬁnd organizational climate measures appropriate to sororities
and fratemities. The more common measures pertained to management, sales teams, and
the productivity of work teams rather than social organizations. Seers’ (1989) team-
member exchange quality survey proved satisfactory, although several items dealing
speciﬁcally with management and the "team approach” were excluded. A few other
items were slightly altered to make them relevant to sororities and fraternities.

Both measures of self-esteem seemed satisfactory. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem

scale is a more global measure of self-esteem compared to the Organizational Based

43

Self-Esteem index, which is a more situation-speciﬁc measure of self-esteem that
pertains to feelings of self-worth derived from the organization. Recent research,
however, has identiﬁed two underlying dimensions of global self-esteem measures.
Tafarodi and Swarm, Jr. (1995) have validated the dimensions of self-liking and self-
competence for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. In contrast, the OBSE items appear to
represent only the self-competence dimension (i.e., ”I am valuable around here”, "I am
efﬁcient around here", and "I am helpful around here"). It is possible that using the RSE
as an unidimensional index may not have clariﬁed the relationship between self-esteem
and counterproductive behaviors. Additionally, the difference in the number of
dimensions of the self-esteem measures may shed some light as to why the OBSE, but
not the RSE, associated in the predicted direction with post-leaders’ counterproductive
behaviors.
S' . 11 E' l

The data revealed a number of interesting and unexpected differences between
fraternities and sororities. The fratemity leaders initially scored signiﬁcantly higher on
several of the measures (RSE, OBSEL, number of other leadership positions involved
with, and Meeting Effectiveness) and also associated the Meeting Effectiveness and
Cohesiveness scales more strongly, compared to the sorority leaders. The fratemity
leaders also perceived their meetings to be more effective.

The fraternity and sorority leaders’ reversions to member status also appeared quite
different Surprisingly, the fraternity post-leaders’ self-esteem (OBSEM) scores

correlated negatively with their scores on each organizational climate scale, whereas the

44

sorority post-leaders’ OBSEM scores associated positively with the same scales. This
difference is puzzling because it suggests that lower self-esteem scores (OBSEM) among
the fraternity leaders were associated with a greater satisfaction with their organization.
Also, the mean organizational climate scores of fraternity post-leaders were more
favorable than those of their sorority peers as evidenced by signiﬁcant gender differences
for the Meeting Effectiveness and Cohesiveness scales.

According to the members of these sororities and fraternities, organizational
transitions entailed some conﬂict, tension, or upheaval, especially after the former
leaders continued as members of the same organization. Signiﬁcant gender differences
were also found for the member-based data. The fratemity members, compared to the
sorority members, viewed their organizations as more cohesive and having more
effective meetings at both data collections. In addition, within-organizational differences
identiﬁed a signiﬁcant decline in the effectiveness of meetings and quality of exchange
relationships for the ﬁaternities when leaders became post-leaders and a similar decline
in the cohesiveness of the sororities. It is unclear that this discontent can largely be
attributed to the former leaders behaving counterproductively in the organization, but
their behavior may contribute to a decreased sense of member cohesiveness related to a
decline in the satisfaction of their interactions.

A possible alternative explanation of this period of discontent may be the time of the
year when the leadership transition occurs. Sororities and fratemities are comprised of
college students likely to feel under pressure during midterms and ﬁnal exams, meeting

paper deadlines, and satisfying their class demands. These pressures may make it more

Ibo

45

difﬁcult for the members of these organizations to participate in and enjoy their various
activities and commitments with their sorority or fraternity. In this study, ﬁve out of six
fraternities and one out of eight sororities held their leadership transitions near the end of
the fall semester or in the middle of the spring semester. These times coincide with
midterm and ﬁnal examinations, which tend to be more stressful times for students. The
remaining organizations, however, changed leaders at the beginning of the spring
semester, which also tends to be a somewhat less stressful time during the year.

The general trend of more favorable scores by the fraternity leaders, post-leaders,
and members compared to their sorority counterparts may be attributable to the
attitudinal differences noted during data collections. The fraternity participants appeared
to be in a hurry to complete the questionnaires and appeared to respond less
conscientiously. In addition, it appeared as if the fratemity participants were trying to
favorably impress the researcher. These factors may have artifactually inflated their
scores.

Surprising and unexpected was the difference in the association between OBSEL
and OBSEM for the sorority and fratemity post-leaders. These measures, which are
identical except for a minor shift in instructions, correlated signiﬁcantly with each other
among sorority post-leaders (r = .45, p < .05), but only faintly (r = .05) among ﬁ'aternity
post-leaders. Although it fell short of the .05 level of conﬁdence, this difference is quite
perplexing. It suggests that there is a weak relationship between how the fraternity
leader feels about himself as a leader in the organization and as a member of that

organization after his leadership term has ended. Perhaps the fraternity post-leaders were

46

less sure about their importance or purpose in the organization after returning to member
status. The time when the data was collected from the fraternities may have been as
important as the change in the leaders’ status. For ﬁve of the six ﬁ'aternities, the data
collection was held at times when the leaders were involved with midterm and ﬁnal
examinations. Collecting the data at these stressful times may have inﬂuenced this
relationship. It would be interesting to explore how fraternities’ (and sororities’)
organizational climate ﬂuctuates over the course of a year.

Comparisons of the more global RSE with the organizational based self-esteem
measures as a leader (OBSEL) and a member (OBSEM), are consistent with prior
evidence (Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991; Guastello, et al., 1992; Raven, 1990, 1992)
that the power base of leadership tends to inﬂate a leader’s self-esteem and that leaving
this position tends to lead to a deﬂation in self-esteem. However, the present ﬁndings
would be more convincing if there was a signiﬁcant difference between the correlations
of OBSEL and OBSEM correlations with RSE. It appears that although the self—esteem
derived from organizational roles may be amenable to change depending on an
individual's position in the organization, the individual's overall level of self-esteem may

remain relatively more stable over time.

o”

.f

RECOMMENDATIONS
E B l I l' .

The signiﬁcant gender differences found in this study strongly suggest that gender
effects be taken into account when developing and validating future measures, as well as
when conducting future research. It may also be useful to have a team of experimenters
(a male and female) participate in data collection. This may counteract the effects of
having participants trying to favorably impress a researcher of the opposite sex.

In general, gender effects may have been overlooked in previous studies due to the
predominance of male leaders. However, it is now more common to see females, as well
as males, holding leadership positions. It seems worthwhile to elucidate both the
similarities and differences in how men and women approach role transitions. Future
studies of this kind should be expanded to include more leaders and post-leaders and
other organizations that have a similar role structure as sororities and fraternities.

The limitations of this study suggest several areas that could be improved in the
future. It would be beneﬁcial to develop and validate an assessment tool that accurately
captures post-leaders’ counterproductive behaviors within an organization. Other
measures, such as members’ report or interviews with post-leaders and new leaders,
compared to new leaders’ report, may be more sensitive in capturing the type and degree
of former leaders’ counterproductive behaviors. A combination of these different types
of measures may prove to be more efficient.

Additionally, the development and validation of an assessment tool that measures

47

i ’r

48

the organizational climate speciﬁc to sororities and fraternities would be fruitﬁrl.
Although Seers’ (1989) organizational climate measure appeared satisfactory, several
items had to be rewarded and several others were deleted to make this questionnaire
more relevant to the present organizations. The present organizational climate measure
may have missed important features of the general atmosphere of these speciﬁc
organizations. It would also be useful to obtain a baseline measure of the sororities’ and
fraternities’ organizational climate at different points in time over the course of a year. It
is plausible that external factors inﬂuence the organizational climate in different ways.
Although this study examined only one type of organization, some of the ﬁndings
may apply to other organizational settings which have a similar leadership structure. The
ways in which leaders handle their loss of power and return to member status may
involve covert ways of sabotaging the new leader and organization and be more subtle
than expected. Programs that place emphasis on the former leader's involvement with
the new leader's training may be helpful in circumventing some of these
counterproductive behaviors. In addition, organizations should expect some discord
during a leadership transition and should implement programs to increase members'
feelings of cohesiveness with each other, increase team-building skills, and build
satisfying exchange relationships. These suggestions may facilitate constructive

leadership transitions in organizations.

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ashforth, B. E., & Lee, R. T. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A
preliminary model. Hummﬁelaﬁons, 43, 621-648.

Blascovich, J. & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of Self-Esteem. In J. P. Robinson,

P KShaver.andL S WrightsmanmdS) Measuresefnersenaliuanimm
psychologisalattimdes (pp. 115- -l60). California: Academic Press.

Brockner, J., &Elkind, M. (1985). Self-esteem and reactance: Further evidence of

attitudinal and motivational consequences. W
21, 346-361.

Dansereau,F., Graen,G., &Haga,W. J. (1975). Averticaldyadlinkageapproach

to leadership within formal organizations. WW
Rerfennanee. 13. 46-78

Guastello, S. J., Rieke, M. L., Guastello, D. D., & Billings, S. W. (1992). A study of
cynicism, personality, and work values. W 126, 37-48.

House, R. J. & Singh, J. V. (1987). Organizational Behavior: Some new directions
for 1’0 Psychology AnnuaLReximefPsxclmleu 3.8. 669-718

Jones, S. (1984). The politics of problems: Intersubjectivity in deﬁning powerful
others. HumanBelatiens. 31. 881-894.

Kabanoff, B. (1985). Potential inﬂuence structures as sources of interpersonal
conﬂictingroupsandorganizations. 01 t '2 : . . t . ;
Emeesses 16113-141.

 

Kabanoff, B. (1988). Analyzing organizational conﬂicts using a model based on
structural role theory. W 51, 841-870.

Kerr, N. J. (1985). Behavioral manifestations of misguided entitlement.
W 23. 5-15.

49

 

(1"

50

Kochan, T. A., Cummings, L. L., & Huber, G. P. (1976). Operationalizing the
concepts of goals and goal incompatibilities in organizational behavior research. Hm
Relations. 22. 527-544-

Lazega, E. (1990). Internal politics and the interactive elaboration of information in
workgroups: An exploratory study. W, 43, 81-101.

Mackenzie, K. R., Dies, R. R., Coché, E., Rutan, J. S., & Stone, W. N. (1987). An

analysis of AGPA Institute Stoops IntematienalermaleLGmunEsyehetheranx. 31.
55-74.

Medirri, G., & Rosenberg, E. H. (1976). Gossip and Psychotherapy. American
W. 3.0. 452-462.

Oeser, O. A., & Harary, F. (1962). A mathematical model for structural role theory,
1- HmnanEelatiens.15. 89-109.

Oeser, O. A., & Harary, F. (1964). A mathematical model for structural role theory,
11. HumanRelatiens. 11. 3-17.

Oeser O. A., & O'Brien, G. (1967). A mathematical model for structural role
theory. 111. HumanRelat'rons. 212. 83-97.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., & Cummings, L. L. (1989).
Organization based self-esteem: Construct deﬁnition, measurement, and validation.

AcademxefManaaemenLlQnmal. 32. 622-648.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., & Cummings, L. L. (1993).
Moderation of organization-based self-esteem of role condition-employee response

relationships. AeadmeLMmemenLIoumal. 36. 271-288.

Raskin, R., Novacek, J ., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and
defensive self-enhancement. W 52, 19-38.

Raven, B. H. (1990). Political applications of the psychology of interpersonal
inﬂuence and social power. WM 11, 493-520.

Raven, B. H. (1992). A Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Inﬂuence.

French and Raven thirty Yeats later IQumaIeLSeeialBehaxieundl’ersenalinr. 1. 217-
244.

Rosenbers. M- (1965). Seeielxandtheadeleseentimaae New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.

51

Seers, A. (1989). Team-Member exchange quality: A new construct for role-
making research. W 53. 118-135

Simpson, C. K. & Boyle,D ”(1975) Esteem construct generality and academic
performance EducationaLandEsxcholosiszaLMeasutemcnt. 35., 897-904

Smither, R. D. (1993). Authoritarianism, dominance, and social behavior: A
perspective from evolutionary personality psychology. BMW 4Q, 2343.

Tafarodi, R. W. & Swarm, Jr., W. B. (1995). Self-Liking and self-competence as
dimensions of global self-esteem: Initial validation of a measure. WW
AWLQXZ) 322-342

Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. [mu-ml
stimulant. 13. 251-289.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of drﬁ‘erent power sources in
downward and lateral relations MW, 16, 416423.

 

‘I.

nICHran STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
llHIWVIWWWWWW"W"IIIHIIII‘HIWI
31293014056406