EMPOWERED OR ENTITLED TO LEAD? AN EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF HOW MANAGERS NAVIGATE STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT By Hun Whee Lee A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Business Administration – Organizational Behavior – Human Resource Management – Doctor of Philosophy 2020 ABSTRACT EMPOWERED OR ENTITLED TO LEAD? AN EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF HOW MANAGERS NAVIGATE STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT By Hun Whee Lee With the recognition that traditional bureaucratic structures are less likely to respond effectively to volatile and complex business environments, the movement toward structural empowerment has been touted as one of the most significant changes in modern organizations. However, research to date has advanced opposing viewpoints on whether or not structural empowerment will psychologically empower managers and enhance group functioning. The aim of my dissertation is to provide a more nuanced view of the downstream consequences of how managers navigate structural empowerment through the lens of evolutionary psychology. I developed a comprehensive model of how evolved motives for social influence––prestige and dominance––and situational constraints––resource scarcity and outcome interdependence––guide managers’ cognition and behavior in the context of structural empowerment. To test my arguments, I utilized experimental (Study 1) and field survey (Study 2) methodologies. My dissertation contributes to the literature in three important ways: 1) I complement the predominant focus on the link between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment by providing accounts for an unintended consequence of structural empowerment, namely entitled managers; 2) my focus on managers’ external resource acquisition and sharing as outcomes of structural empowerment expands conceptual boundaries of the role of leadership in the literature; and 3) my dissertation provides an example of how insights from evolutionary psychology can be leveraged to gain a better understanding of why managers do what they do within contemporary organizational structures. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I was truly lucky at every moment of my academic journey so far. Most importantly, I met my advisor Dr. Russell Johnson, who is not only a great academic mentor but also a genuine, fun, and caring friend. My time here at MSU was full of fun, joy, and laughter thanks to him. I have never hesitated to talk to him about anything personally and professionally and he was always there to listen to and support me. We travelled and hung out together at many places and my favorite memory with him is our trip in Jerusalem with Daisy and her mom and sister. My wishes at the Western Wall have all come true. He is my role model for how to live an enjoyable and meaningful life in this academic community. At the end of the day, what I would cherish the most is the people around me, not how many publications I have and how recognized I am in this field. If I can make my future students feel the same way Russ made me feel during my doctoral program, I cannot be happier and I will consider it as my greatest accomplishment being in this profession. I am also very thankful to my committee members, Dr. D. Lance Ferris, Dr. Brent Scott, and Dr. Nick Hays. I have great memories with all of my committee members including our Pro Evolution Soccer (PES) nights with Lance (I am the inaugural winner of John A. Hannah Distinguished TA of PES) and Brent (I bumped into his car but he was so cool about it) and hangouts with Nick at conferences and in East Lansing. I learned a lot from each of them and I feel very lucky that I could receive support from these scholars and individuals I really like. I would like to express my gratitude toward all the faculty and staff in our department as well. I still remember the first gathering of all faculty members since I joined the program and the feelings of admiration seeing all of them together in one spot (N476). They looked like iv (academic) heroes and heroines to me and they will always be. I cherish the opportunity to work with Dr. John Hollenbeck, Dr. Linn Van Dyne, and Dr. Donald Conlon and they were indeed supportive and inspiring. Sue was always there to listen to and effectively address my issues and I have always enjoyed talking to her. All in all, what a lovely group of people! Finally, I deeply appreciate my family and friends who have been always caring and encouraging. My parents (Boshin Lee and Kyungsook Kim), my brother and sister in-law (Chanwhee Lee and Hyein Jung), and all my relatives have prayed for me and celebrated my achievements together. I am very thankful to my mentors in South Korea for paving the way for my doctoral degree, Dr. Seongsu Kim, Dr. Jin Nam Choi, and Dr. Goo Hyeok Chung. And special thanks to Jooyoung Kim and Kisuk Park, who put up with me and showed great love and support. They are such great individuals that always inspire me to be a better person. With her great patience and sincerity, I have no doubt that Jooyoung will soon become Dr. Kim, who is happy and makes others feel happy, safe, and comfortable with her. I sincerely hope that Kisuk Park will start his academic journey someday so that he can quench his thirst for knowledge and we can continue our tradition of intellectual but unnecessary conversation. I cannot express how thankful I am enough. There are so many words and names that keep appearing while I am writing up acknowledgements. I will try to reciprocate with my actions for the rest of my life. With all the love, kindness, and support I have received from you all, I am ready to move onto the next chapter of my life and have some fun. Thanks all! v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 8 THE IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT ............................................... 8 Introduction to Structural Empowerment. .......................................................................... 8 The Bureaucratic Model. .................................................................................................... 9 The Post-Bureaucratic Model and Structural Empowerment ........................................... 12 The Consequences of Structural Empowerment. .............................................................. 15 OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEORETICAL ADVANCEMENT .............................................. 16 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY ................................. 19 EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE ON STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT .................... 19 Prestige and Dominance Orientations ............................................................................. 23 Resource Scarcity.............................................................................................................. 27 Outcome Interdependence ................................................................................................ 28 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................ 30 EMPOWERED OR ENTITLED TO LEAD? ......................................................................... 30 Manager’s Interpretation of Structural Empowerment ..................................................... 30 Prestige-Oriented Managers: Psychological Empowerment ............................................ 31 Dominance-Oriented Managers: Psychological Entitlement. ........................................... 36 INTER-GROUP BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES ..................................................................... 40 Introduction to External Resource Exchanges.. ................................................................ 40 Psychologically Empowered Managers: Resource Scarcity and External Resource Sharing .............................................................................................................................. 42 Psychologically Entitled Managers: Resource Scarcity and External Resource Acquisition ........................................................................................................................................... 46 GROUP PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES.............................................................................. 50 Introduction to Group Performance .................................................................................. 50 External Resource Sharing: Outcome Interdependence and Group Performance ............ 51 External Resource Acquisition: Outcome Interdependence and Group Performance ...... 53 THE INTEGRATIVE MODEL ............................................................................................ 55 OVERVIEW OF STUDIES .......................................................................................................... 57 STUDY 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 57 SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE............................................................................................... 57 MEASURES ........................................................................................................................... 60 Manipulation check ........................................................................................................... 60 Perception of being trusted ............................................................................................... 60 vi Prosocial motivation ......................................................................................................... 61 Sense of superiority........................................................................................................... 61 Psychological empowerment ............................................................................................ 61 Psychological entitlement ................................................................................................. 61 External resource exchanges ............................................................................................. 62 STUDY 1 RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 62 TESTS OF THE HYPOTHESES ........................................................................................... 63 ALTERNATIVE THEORIZING AND SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................... 65 STUDY 1 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 72 STUDY 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 76 SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE............................................................................................... 76 MEASURES ........................................................................................................................... 78 Structural empowerment ................................................................................................... 78 Prestige and dominance orientations ................................................................................ 78 Psychological empowerment ............................................................................................ 79 Psychological entitlement ................................................................................................. 79 Resource scarcity .............................................................................................................. 79 Managers’ resource exchanges ......................................................................................... 79 Outcome interdependence ................................................................................................. 79 Group performance ........................................................................................................... 80 Control variables ............................................................................................................... 80 STUDY 2 RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 81 ALTERNATIVE THEORIZING AND SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................... 86 ROBUSTNESS CHECK AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES .......................... 101 GENERAL DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 108 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................................... 109 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................................115 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ..............................................117 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 121 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 123 APPENDIX A – Manipulation Conditions (Study 1) ......................................................... 124 APPENDIX B – The Company Description (Study 1) ......................................................... 128 APPENDIX C – Complete Survey (Study 1) ....................................................................... 129 APPENDIX D – Complete Survey (Study 2) ....................................................................... 133 APPENDIX E – Survey Items for the Revised Model (Study 2) ......................................... 140 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 142 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Means and Standard Deviations of Perception of Being Trusted and Prosocial Motivation (Study 1). .................................................................................................................... 64 Table 2 – Means and Standard Deviations of Sense of Superiority and Proself Motivation (Study 1). .................................................................................................................................................. 64 Table 3 – Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Empowerment and Psychological Entitlement (Study 1). ................................................................................................................... 65 Table 4 – Multiple Regression Predicting Perception of Being Trusted, Prosocial Motivation, Sense of Superiority, and Proself Motivation (Study 1). .............................................................. 67 Table 5 – Multiple Regression Predicting Psychological Empowerment and Psychological Entitlement (Study 1) .................................................................................................................... 70 Table 6 – Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 2) ......................................................... 84 Table 7 – Results of Path Analysis (Study 2) ................................................................................ 85 Table 8 – Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 2; a revised model) .............................. 97 Table 9 – Results of Path Analysis (Study 2; a revised model) .................................................... 98 Table 10 – Moderated Mediation Results across Levels of Prestige Orientation, Dominance Orientation, and Resource Scarcity in My Group (Study 2; a revised model) ............................. 99 Table 11 – Manipulation Conditions (Study 1) ........................................................................... 124 Table 12 – The Company Description (Study 1) ........................................................................ 128 Table 13 – Complete Survey (Study 1) ....................................................................................... 129 Table 14 – Complete Survey (Study 2) ....................................................................................... 133 Table 15 – Survey Items for the Revised Model (Study 2) ......................................................... 140 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Proposed Theoretical Model .......................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 – Proposed Interaction for Psychological Empowerment .............................................. 36 Figure 3 – Proposed Interaction for Psychological Entitlement ................................................... 40 Figure 4 – Proposed Interaction for External Resource Sharing .................................................. 46 Figure 5 – Proposed Interaction for External Resource Acquisition ............................................ 50 Figure 6 – Proposed Interaction for Group Performance Moderated by Intergroup Outcome Interdependence ............................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 7 – Proposed Interaction for Group Performance Moderated by Intragroup Outcome Interdependence ............................................................................................................................ 55 Figure 8 – Interaction for Psychological Entitlement Moderated by Prestige Orientation (Study 1) ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 9 – Interaction for Psychological Entitlement Moderated by Dominance Orientation (Study 1)........................................................................................................................................ 71 Figure 10 – Results of the Path Analysis (Study 2) ...................................................................... 83 Figure 11 – Alternative Research Model ...................................................................................... 92 Figure 12 – Interaction for Psychological Entitlement Moderated by Prestige Orientation (Study 2; a revised model) ...................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 13 – Interaction for Psychological Entitlement Moderated by Dominance Orientation (Study 2; a revised model) .......................................................................................................... 100 Figure 14 – Interaction for Psychological Entitlement Moderated by Resource Scarcity in My Group (Study 2; a revised model) ............................................................................................... 101 ix INTRODUCTION Structural empowerment, defined as a formal decentralization of authority and responsibility, forms the basis of new organizational structures (Maynard, Gilson, & Mathieu, 2012; Mills & Ungson, 2003; Spreitzer, 2008). With the belief that traditional bureaucratic structures are no longer viable, the movement toward structural empowerment has been touted as one of the most significant changes in modern organizations (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Kanter, 1993; Lawler, Mohrman, & Benson, 2001). The business environment of contemporary organizations is largely volatile and information asymmetry and ambiguity facilitate the need for structural empowerment across different workgroups within a firm (Maynard et al., 2012; Mills & Ungson, 2003). In particular, given the contingent nature of work processes that vary across groups and work situations, organizations rely on group managers because they are considered having intimate knowledge of what is happening in the group, what employees and customers need, and what improvements need to be made to boost group effectiveness (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007; Pak & Kim, 2018). As a result, managers are vested with formal authority and responsibility with the hope that structural empowerment helps them lead the group effectively and adapt to the changing environment (Martin & Bush, 2006; Spreitzer, De Janasz, & Quinn, 1999; Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996). In understanding the downstream consequences of structural empowerment, the dominant view is that when managers are structurally empowered, they are likely to ‘pay it forward’ by engaging in innovative and charismatic leader behaviors that benefit the group. The trickle-down model of structural empowerment suggests that managers’ sense of psychological empowerment, as a consequence of structural empowerment, is beneficial for group functioning. For example, Spreitzer (1996) demonstrated that structural empowerment was related to the psychological 1 empowerment of middle managers (see also Logan & Ganster, 2007, for a field experiment) and this relation has been replicated across multiple cultures and industries (e.g., Siu, Laschinger, & Vingilis, 2005; Sun, Zhang, Qi, & Chen, 2012) and even longitudinally across time (e.g., Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk, 2004). Psychologically empowered managers, in turn, enhance group effectiveness by driving innovative change and inspiring followers (Martin & Bush, 2006; Parker & Price, 1994; Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996; Spreitzer et al., 1999). Contrary to the trickle-down view, however, an emerging stream of the literature on empowerment and a social hierarchy perspective of leadership proposes an alternative pattern. Specifically, managers with greater authority and responsibility may instead become more self- centered and less attentive to situational constraints and others’ needs and expectations (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008; Maner & Mead, 2010; Schmid & Schmid Mast, 2013; Pitesa & Thau, 2013). According to this perspective, managers develop greater sense of entitlement and prioritize their own goals rather than looking out for the group when they are structurally empowered. Indeed, scholars theorized unexpected outcomes of managers with structural empowerment, such as “opportunism and self- interests” (Mills & Ungson, 2003, p. 151) and “greed, corruption, and theft” (Kanter, 1993, p. 51). Taken together, these different viewpoints cast doubts on whether structurally empowering managers can be an effective way to manage groups. More broadly, they bring into question whether the ever-increasing promotion of empowerment initiatives across the globe, facilitated by the paradigm shift to post bureaucratic organization, is even desirable (Kellogg, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2006; Mills & Ungson, 2003). The aim of my dissertation is to provide a more nuanced and comprehensive view of the downstream consequences of structural empowerment through the lens of evolutionary 2 psychology. Structural empowerment and leader behaviors share a common evolutionary underpinning because the formal authority and responsibility provided by structural empowerment have been evolutionarily valued for an increased likelihood of survival and prosperity (Maner, 2016). Moreover, humans – a group-living species that faces challenges with coordinating with others throughout history – place great emphasis on leadership as a powerful way to allocate resources, resolve conflict, and take concerted actions for group success (Spisak, Nicholson, & Van Vugt, 2011; Van Vugt, 2006). Thus, evolutionary psychology offers a meta- theoretical perspective valuable for understanding cognitive and behavioral processes in how managers navigate structural empowerment. Utilizing insights from the literature on evolutionary psychology that identifies prestige (i.e., individual orientation for admiration and respect) and dominance (i.e., individual orientation for control and power) as two fundamental human motives for social influence (Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone, & Henrich, 2013; Henrich & Gil-White, 2000; Maner & Case, 2016), I posit that structural empowerment leads to greater psychological empowerment (rather than entitlement) when managers are high in prestige orientation. In contrast, when managers are high in dominance orientation, they feel more entitled (rather than empowered) as a consequence of structural empowerment. Notably, I suggest that whether managers feel empowered or entitled, as outcomes of structural empowerment, has significant implications on their subsequent behaviors involving resource exchanges (i.e., acquisition and sharing) outside the group and, ultimately, group performance. I focus on external resource exchanges due to its evolutionary value for group survival and prosperity as well as increasing demands for cross-boundary coordination and resource sharing in contemporary organizations (Buss, 2015; Gibson & Dibble, 2013; Kellogg et 3 al., 2006; Kenrick, Maner, & Li, 2005). Moreover, I identify resource scarcity as a key boundary condition that facilitates external resource acquisition and sharing enacted by psychologically empowered and entitled managers because resource scarcity is an important trigger of adaptive reactions of humans (Harari, 2015; Pitesa & Thau, 2018). As I outline below, managers with psychological empowerment are more likely to share resources externally when external groups lack resources for their group functioning. I also suggest that managers with psychological entitlement will demand more external resource support from upper management when their own groups lack resources for internal group functioning. Finally, leaders’ sharing of resources with other teams is beneficial for group performance when mutual reciprocity is expected due to intergroup outcome interdependence. Leaders’ acquisition of resources will benefit group performance when there is high intragroup outcome interdependence, which would prompt leaders to invest those resources in the group. My dissertation offers several key contributions to the extant literature. To begin, I complement the predominant focus on the link between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment (for an overview, see Maynard et al., 2012) by providing accounts for an unintended consequence of structural empowerment: entitled managers. I suggest that structural empowerment may lead to psychological entitlement when managers are high in dominance. Importantly, whether managers feel empowered or entitled has an impact on how managers acquire and share resources externally in addition to their leader behaviors within a group. Thus, the consequences of structural empowerment are far more complex and broader than what is currently known in the literature. This insight is important because it indicates that prior recommendations for empowerment initiatives may need to be amended (Mills & Ungson, 2003; Spreitzer, 2008). In particular, given the global trend in the movement toward post 4 bureaucratic organizational structure (Child & McGrath 2001; Heckscher & Donnellon, 1994; Kellogg et al., 2006), represented by structural empowerment, my dissertation calls for awareness and consideration for a comprehensive view of the consequences of such empowerment. Moreover, my focus on managers’ external resource acquisition and sharing as outcomes of structural empowerment is noteworthy for its potential to expand conceptual boundaries of the role of leadership in the literature. An evolutionary perspective identifies external resource exchanges (i.e., acquisition and sharing) as key determinants of group survival and prosperity, thereby drawing our attention to managers’ boundary spanning activities outside the immediate work group (Buss, 2015; Spisak et al., 2011). The existing literature on leadership predominantly focuses on intra-group leader behaviors, such as transformational and abusive behaviors toward followers (for an overview, see Lord, Day, Zaccaro, Avolio, & Eagly, 2017). However, in addition to intra-group management, group managers serve as liaisons who take roles and responsibilities for acquiring and sharing resources outside the group, which has resulted in them being labeled ‘ambassadors’ (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992), ‘linking pins’ (Likert, 1967), and ‘external coordinators’ (Yukl, 2012). The extant literature pays far less attention to the inter- group (vs. intra-group) activities of managers. This oversight is unfortunate because what managers do outside the group, with regards to acquisition and sharing of resources, can have significant impact on not only internal group functioning but also organizational effectiveness as a whole (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Choi, 2002; Gibson & Dibble, 2013; Kellogg et al., 2006; Yukl, 2012). Understanding these external activities of managers is particularly important given increasing inter-group interdependence and exchanges in contemporary organizations (Lanaj, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Barnes, & Harmon, 2013). 5 Finally, most broadly, by drawing on the literature on evolutionary psychology to understand the impact of structural empowerment on managers’ cognitions and behaviors, my dissertation highlights a potential for providing insights into how humans explore modern organizational structures and systems. Evolutionary psychology connects human motives and situational constraints to a set of recurrent problems faced by humans living in groups (Buss, 2015). Despite the growing acknowledgement of the power of an evolutionary perspective to understand human behavior (Buss, 2015; Kenrick et al., 2005; Roberts, 2012), its application in organizational research is still nascent, focusing on perceptions of threat, risk taking, and gender differences (Fessler, Pillsworth, & Flamson, 2004; Kouchaki & Desai, 2015; Lee, Choi, & Kim, 2018; Lee, Pitesa, Pillutla, & Thau, 2017). However, there is potentially great promise in applying what is known in the literature on evolutionary psychology to human experiences in the workplace where different sets of adaptive problems occur for individuals to cope with (Pitesa & Thau, 2018). I develop a comprehensive model of how evolved motives for social influence–– prestige and dominance––and situational constraints––resource scarcity and outcome interdependence––guide human cognition and behavior in the context of structural empowerment. I examine structural empowerment as one of the most important features of organizational structures. My dissertation is an important addition to the literature on evolutionary psychology because it is one of the early attempts that utilizes a person-situation interaction view of evolutionary perspectives in organizational settings (Buss, 2009a). Thus, my dissertation provides an example of how insights from evolutionary psychology can be leveraged to gain a better understanding of why employees do what they do within contemporary organizational structures. 6 This dissertation proceeds as follows. First, I review the literature on structural empowerment. This section includes the importance of structural empowerment, the two different views on the consequences of structural empowerment, and areas for opportunity to advance the literature. Next, I introduce the lens of evolutionary psychology as the overarching theoretical perspective that ties my model together. This section describes a high-level overview of evolutionary psychology with the focus on the relevance of the theory to my study of structural empowerment and leadership. The third section includes formal hypotheses derived from an evolutionary psychological perspective for predicting psychological mechanisms and downstream behavioral and performance outcomes. I then discuss the method for testing my hypotheses. Figure 1 below presents the proposed conceptual model. Figure 1 – Proposed Theoretical Model 7 THE IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction to Structural Empowerment. I define structural empowerment as a formal decentralization of authority and responsibility so that group managers can make important decisions in the group. My definition is consistent with existing studies on structural empowerment. Structural empowerment is based upon the literature on job design and job characteristics (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Hackman & Oldham, 1980) and addresses the issue of transitioning authority and responsibility from upper-level management to a lower level unit where a competent decision can be made (Maynard et al., 2012; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004). Mills and Ungson (2003, p. 203) stated that structural empowerment entails “the decentralization of the decision-making authority and responsibility” and Maynard and colleagues (2012, p. 1245) noted that it captures the extent to which individuals are given “authority and responsibility for a task.” Spreitzer (2008, p. 55) also noted structural empowerment is conceptualized as “cascading relevant decision-making power to lower levels of the organizational hierarchy.” Job autonomy, defined as the amount of freedom and independence an individual has in terms of carrying out his or her work assignment (Hackman & Oldham, 1975), shares some conceptual similarity with structural empowerment. Yet, structural empowerment is different from job autonomy in three key ways. First, structural empowerment emphasizes responsibility of those who are empowered whereas job autonomy emphasizes freedom of choice. For example, by definition, structural empowerment is about authority and responsibility and managers with structural empowerment not only are authorized to make a decision but also take responsibility for the outcomes of their decision making. In contrast, the construct of job 8 autonomy does not involve individuals’ responsibility in the outcomes of their decisions. Second, structural empowerment is rooted in post-bureaucratic movements in management that highlight bottom-up approaches to organizational decision making whereas job autonomy is rooted in humanistic movements in management that highlight employee well-being and satisfaction (Mills & Ungson, 2003; Lee & Edmondson, 2017). Third, structural empowerment involves relational aspects of managers’ decision-making whereas job autonomy is more task-focused. For example, structural empowerment emphasizes middle managers’ involvement in key decision makings that have significant impacts on others (e.g., selecting and training team members, conducting performance appraisals and allocation of rewards, and setting strategy, goals, and mission) whereas job autonomy focuses on individuals’ freedom for their own work methods and procedures. As I detail below, the emergence of structural empowerment originated from the necessity for new forms of managing and organizing due to changes in business environments characterized by increasing uncertainty, volatility, and complexity. Traditional models of bureaucracy turned out to be insufficient in successfully dealing with these changes. Thus, post- bureaucratic models of management, which emphasize flexibility and adaptability in organizations, have been proposed and popularized (Heckscher & Donnellon, 1994; Lee & Edmondson, 2017). Structural empowerment, as a representative feature of this post-bureaucratic paradigm shift in management, has gained its popularity and significance for its potential to transform organizations into more flexible and interactive ways. The Bureaucratic Model. A key assumption of the theories of bureaucratic management is that the top managers should hold all the necessary information to make the optimal decisions about the whole organization. A philosophical background of this idea is Hobbes (1651). In a 9 state of nature, people compete to survive and try to dominate, which may create casualty, chaos, and misery for all. Thus, according to this perspective, it is advisable to take away decision- making power from each individual and centralize it at the top level (i.e., ‘Leviathan’). In traditional bureaucratic structures, the top layer has a fundamentally different characteristic from the other parts of the organization. It is the primary place where the fundamental questions of strategy and goals are discussed. Those who hold positions at the top layer (i.e., top-level managers) have excessive control and power in the organization. Accordingly, Max Weber conceptualized modern bureaucracy as "a power instrument of the first order — for the one who controls the bureaucratic apparatus" (Weber, 1946, p. 228). As the locus of centralized power, the top managers have ‘legitimate authority’; they can command without giving a justification (Heckscher & Donnellon, 1994). All other levels primarily focus on implementation. The top-level managers delegate pieces of implementation to those lower down. One of the primary goals of traditional bureaucracies is to help the decision made by top managers to be implemented effectively without misinterpretation and distortion. Thus, roles and tasks need to be clearly specified in terms of their boundaries and responsibilities. As described by the management theorist Frederick Taylor (1911), the bureaucratic model specifies roles and tasks as detailed as possible and enforces them strongly. Employees are managed tightly through clear objectives and measurements and they are assigned to positions that are carefully designed to perform a specific task. They take clear responsibility for different pieces in the whole work process in order to reduce role conflict and ambiguity (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). In doing so, a bureaucratic form of organization improves efficiency with high levels of standardization (i.e., legitimized procedures are used to cover all circumstances), formalization (i.e., rules, procedures, instructions, and communications are written), hierarchy of authority 10 (i.e., the locus of decision making is pre-structured by the organization), and specialization (i.e., the distribution of official duties among organizational positions) (Adler, Goldoftas, & Levine, 1999; Pugh, Hickson, & Hinings, 1969). Despite its strength for efficiency, the bureaucratic structure has its own downsides. First, a problem of the bureaucratic structure is that it tends to limit the use of available human resource capabilities in an organization (Heckscher & Donnellon, 1994; Lee & Edmondson, 2017). By design, only the top of the organization has a general picture of the whole system and what to change. Those lower down (e.g., middle managers and employees) see only the pieces that they are assigned and are expected merely to provide required information (upward) and to comply with orders (downward). Those lower down are not expected to contribute further with regards to goals, strategies, and directions at the big picture level. Thus, the bureaucratic model ends up limiting information and knowledge sharing and failing to leverage all of the human resource capabilities that are available to the organization. As a result, decision makings tend to be limited in a narrow range of possibilities because the decision makers have limited time and resources as individuals (Lee & Edmondson, 2017). In contrast, with structural empowerment, a greater number of organizational members are expected to participate in decision makings about organizational issues, such as group goals, strategies, directions, and work procedures (Mills & Ungson, 2003). Thus, organizations can maximize their use of human resource capabilities and come up with innovative solutions. Second, the bureaucratic model is less adaptive to changing environments (Adler et al., 1999; Merton, 1958). An underlying assumption of the bureaucratic model is, "That's not my job." Bureaucratic constraints tend to promote a passive orientation to one’s work role (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Martinko & Gardner, 1982). Those who go beyond their assigned roles, drive 11 changes in the system, or try to reach out outside of their appointed channels will be told, "That's not your job." Anyone who tries to break this bond can potentially cause trouble and even throw the whole system into chaos by confusing lines of responsibility and authority. Thus, organizational members refrain from taking initiatives beyond their duties and it is not easy for them to deal with inevitable shifts. The only way to make changes in the organization is to refer problems for formal resolution to upper-level management. However, formal resolution (e.g., changes in job responsibilities and structures) can be a highly disruptive and time-consuming process (Heckscher & Donnellon, 1994; Merton, 1958). Thus, the bureaucratic model tends to be conservative and slow in adapting to changing environments. In contrast, structural empowerment encourages organizational members to take initiatives for improving organizational functioning (Kanter, 1993). Moreover, they are further authorized and responsible for driving necessary changes in organizations without heavily relying on formal resolution (Spreitzer, 1995). Thus, structural empowerment enhances organizational adaptability because organizational members can make prompt decisions in response to changing environments. The Post-Bureaucratic Model and Structural Empowerment. Contemporary organizations operate in a more flexible and intricate environment than in the past. In today’s business world, firms emphasize a successful mobilization of multiple intelligence and the need for collaboration across teams and individuals. With the recognition that traditional bureaucratic structures are less able to respond effectively to new conditions of volatility and complexity (Child & McGrath 2001; Heckscher & Donnellon, 1994), firms are deviating from traditional models of management to meet emerging demands of adaptability and collaboration across boundaries (Adler et al., 1999; Kellogg et al., 2006). 12 In seeking to deal with these new demands, alternative ways of management—so-called post-bureaucratic paradigm shifts in management—have been proposed and popularized (Heckscher & Donnellon, 1994; Hendry, 2006; Kellogg et al., 2006). The key idea is to create an organization that maximizes the utilization of the full capacity of all its members and adapts to the changing environment quickly and effectively (Johnson, Wood, Brewster, & Brookes, 2009). In the bureaucratic model, employees are required to do only one's job well and uphold the rules, whereas the post-bureaucratic organization encourages participation in decision making processes, opportunities to venture for new possibilities, and collaboration with others. One of core features of this paradigm shift is the adoption of structural empowerment (Hendry, 2006; Kanter, 1993). With structural empowerment, those lower down in the organization have an opportunity to have influence on a broad range of organizational issues and to make changes in order to adapt to changing environments (Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). The widened responsibility and decentralized authority of those lower down in the organization are expected to help firms become more open, innovative, and adaptive (Aime, Humphrey, DeRue, & Paul, 2014; Knol & Van Linge, 2009; Spreitzer, 1995). With the increasing popularity of group-based work systems, the adoption of structural empowerment leads organizations to push authority and governance down the organizational hierarchy from central control of the upper level management to local control at the group level (Hendry, 2006; Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012). Each group takes greater responsibility for its own operation and survival. Importantly, this transition requires group managers to take a bigger role as quasi-parents for their groups because they are accountable for dealing with external environments and providing resources for their group (Hales, 1986; 13 Hendry, 2006; Kanter, 1993).1 For example, group managers not only plan and lead within- group activities but also manage the influx and outflux of group resources by negotiating and collaborating with those outside the group (e.g., upper-level management and other groups; Hales, 1986; Hendry, 2006; Yukl, 2012). Indeed, scholars noted that group managers increasingly have more direction and control regarding how they lead their groups (Stewart, Astrove, Reeves, Crawford, & Solimeo, 2017; Yukl, 2012; Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015) and they are further expected to “help procure resources and serve as liaisons and macro-operational coordinators for the team” (Rapp, Gilson, Mathieu, & Ruddy, 2016, p. 111). Thus, in addition to their responsibility as vertical chains of command within the group, horizontal collaborations across groups have become integral parts of manager’s roles. With structural empowerment, group managers gain formal authority and responsibility in attaining and sharing resources between groups (Yukl, 2012). For example, in Nonaka's (1988) description of ‘middle-up-down management,’ middle managers (e.g., group managers) have the authority to determine internal operations and to allocate and approve resource issues associated with staffing, finance, technology, and knowledge management. Moreover, these managers are expected to be able to pull necessary resources from upper-level management and cooperate with other groups by sharing resources (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Yukl, 2012). This change has an important implication because what managers do with regards to acquisition and sharing of resources can have significant impact on not only internal group functioning but it also cascades upward to influence overall organizational effectiveness (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Choi, 2002; Gibson & Dibble, 2013; Kellogg et al., 2006; Yukl, 2012). 1 Due to the focus on differentiation (rather than uniformity) in designing group functions, structural forms tend to vary across groups within organizations as well as the amount of authority and responsibility delegated to each group leader (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Spreitzer, 1996). 14 The Consequences of Structural Empowerment. Given the substantial impact of group managers on organizational functioning, it is important to understand what happens when these managers are vested with greater responsibility and authority due to structural empowerment. There are two different viewpoints regarding this matter. The trickle-down view of structural empowerment suggests that structural empowerment leads to group managers’ sense of psychological empowerment (Logan & Ganster, 2007; Spreitzer, 1996; Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996). This is because, as suggested by social exchange theory and self-determination theory, organizational support and opportunities for influence provided by structural empowerment develop favorable attitudes toward organizations and enhance members’ intrinsic motivation toward their work (Liden et al., 2000; Seibert et al., 2011). Thus, structural empowerment encourages organizational members to feel sense of psychological empowerment and take more initiatives for improving organizational functioning. Indeed, empirical studies find that structural empowerment has positive relations with the psychological empowerment of middle managers (Logan & Ganster, 2007; Spreitzer, 1996) and of employees (Laschinger et al., 2004; Siu et al., 2005; Sun et al., 2012). This relation of structural empowerment with psychological empowerment is important because psychological empowerment is widely considered beneficial for a variety of organizational outcomes such as efficiency, commitment, learning, adaptability, and performance (e.g., Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011; Spreitzer, 2008). Thus, if it is indeed true that structural empowerment leads to psychological empowerment, it follows that structural empowerment may be desirable. Interestingly however, emerging research on empowerment and social hierarchy presents an alternative perspective of unexpected consequences of structural empowerment. Empowerment scholars have theorized alternative, unintended consequences of empowerment 15 initiatives because managers with structural empowerment may look out for their self-interests and their behavior tends to be outside the supervision of the organization and difficult to monitor (Kanter, 1993; Mills & Ungson, 2003; Stewart et al., 2017). For example, Mills and Ungson (2003, p. 143) noted, “empowerment represents an agency problem for the organization that may or may not lead to increased performance.” Kanter (1993, p.50) also documented different incidents of abuse of power by managers allowed for structural empowerment such as “bribery, money channeled into the pockets of promoters instead of toward productive purposes, indulgent spending on overhead and status symbols, and instances of managers defrauding proprietors and then disappearing.” Similarly, the literature on social hierarchy suggests that structural empowerment may promote a greater sense of entitlement in employees. This is because managers may interpret greater authority and responsibility as indicators of their superiority and they may seek out to satisfy their personal benefits rather than the interest of the group (Cheng, Tracy, Henrich, 2010; Guinote, 2007; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). For example, research finds that those with greater authority and control tend to become more selfish, feel less constrained by their social environments, and ignore others’ expectations (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Hecht & LaFrance, 1998; Galinsky et al., 2008; Pitesa & Thau, 2013; Schmid & Schmid Mast, 2013). OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEORETICAL ADVANCEMENT When jointly considering research on structural empowerment and social hierarchy, a complex picture emerges. Specifically, despite the prevailing view of the empowerment literature that structural empowerment can be motivating and empowering middle managers, recent works on structural empowerment and social hierarchy present an alternative possibility that structural empowerment can have an unintended consequence of promoting entitled managers. The 16 literature presents several opportunities to advance extant theory and research regarding structural empowerment. First, the literature on structural empowerment has lacked an overarching theoretical framework to reconcile divergent viewpoints on structural empowerment and provide novel insights for future research. Indeed, scholars have called for a more integrative view on the consequences of structural empowerment. For example, Spreitzer (2008, p. 68) noted the necessity for “a more holistic theory of empowerment at work.” In particular, given the lack of theoretical framework on potential dark side of empowerment, Maynard and colleagues (2012, p. 1248), in their recent review, called for research on “whether there are, in fact, factors that may contribute to a ‘dark side’ of empowerment.” To date, the most common lens to understand the phenomenon has been social exchange theory (for theory, see Blau, 1964; for applications, see Spreitzer, 2008, and Keller & Dansereau, 1995) and self-determination theory (for theory, see Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; for applications, see Chen, Lam, & Zhong, 2007, and Spreitzer, 1996). Other theoretical lenses used to explain structural empowerment include job characteristics theory (for theory, see Hackman & Oldham, 1980; for application, see Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000), expectancy theory (for theory, see Lawler, 1973; for application, see Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), self-efficacy theory (for theory, see Bandura, 1977; for application, see Conger & Kanungo, 1988), and participative goal setting theory (for theory, see Erez & Arad, 1986; for application, see Lee & Wei, 2011). However, the utilization of these theories, especially social exchange theory and self-determination theory, has resulted in an overemphasis of functional outcomes of structural empowerment. For example, research has assumed that positive forms of organizational initiatives such as empowerment will be reciprocated with positive attitudes of the recipients due to triggered benevolent social exchanges (according to 17 social exchange theory) and increased intrinsic motivation (according to self-determination theory) (Liden et al., 2000; Seibert et al., 2011). But as I noted above, recent works suggest that not all individuals necessarily respond to empowerment by prioritizing organizational pursuits; instead, they may focus on self-initiated goals and aspirations. Thus, novel theoretical insights are needed in the empowerment literature to allow for better integration of divergent viewpoints. Second, in considering downstream consequences of structural empowerment, existing research has largely ignored the importance of managers’ actions outside the immediate group especially with regards to their resource exchange patterns. The empowerment literature has mostly focused on the effects of structural and psychological empowerment on managers’ intra- group leadership such as transformational leadership and their innovative behaviors directed at their subordinates (Martin & Bush, 2006; Parker & Price, 1994; Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996; Spreitzer et al., 1999). However, the adoption of structural empowerment emphasizes self- governance and mutual exchanges across groups so that each group can pull and utilize resources as they see fit. With structural empowerment, group managers are increasingly vested with formal authority and responsibility in attaining and utilizing resources outside the groups (Hales, 1986; Yukl, 2012) and their actions can shape the effectiveness of the whole system (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Choi, 2002; Kellogg et al., 2006; Yukl, 2012). However, we do not know the full range of consequences associated with structural empowerment especially with regards to what leaders do outside the group. This lack of attention is surprising considering that empowerment initiatives, as a representative feature of post-bureaucratic models, gain popularity for their potential to create an interactive, organic organization that promotes mutual exchanges and interconnectedness across individuals and groups (Mills & Ungson, 2003; Spreitzer, 1996). For example, Mills and Ungson (2003, p. 144) noted, “structural empowerment arises from 18 conditions of high uncertainty and information asymmetry in contexts where organizational participants exchange information and resources.” Using the lens of evolutionary psychology as an overarching theoretical framework, this dissertation aims to resolve inconsistencies in the literature and open up new avenues for future research by focusing on leaders’ resource exchanges outside the group. I next introduce evolutionary psychology as the overarching theoretical framework that ties my model together. In this section, I provide an overview of evolutionary psychology with the focus on its potential to be applied in the phenomenon of structural empowerment and leadership. I further introduce three key boundary conditions, drawn from the lens of evolutionary psychology, that guide how managers navigate structural empowerment. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE ON STRUCTURAL EMPOWERMENT I draw from evolutionary psychology to understand the downstream consequences of structural empowerment. Evolutionary psychologists argue that human experiences and behaviors are products of psychological mechanisms that evolved to solve recurrent survival and reproduction challenges in ancestral environments (Buss, 2015). For example, resource scarcity due to natural fluctuation in the availability of resources posed recurring challenges in human survival and humans evolved to form groups to cope with such challenges. By living in groups, our ancestors were better able to ensure acquisition of sufficient resources by conducting a large- scale hunting and food foraging and they also shared resources as a way to support each other in respond to changing environments. Thus, group living promoted interdependence among people as an essential part of human survival, which led humans to become intensely social beings from the moment of birth. 19 Indeed, many important adaptive problems humans have faced are inherently social such as communicating, coordinating, detecting a cheater, leading a group, and ascending social hierarchy by pursuing prestige and dominance (Buss, 2015; Buss & Kenrick, 1998). Social problems play a key role as the selective forces that have shaped human survival and prosperity throughout our evolutionary time, and they continue to do so in the present. Thus, according to an evolutionary psychology perspective, the human mind is heavily populated with psychological mechanisms dedicated to social solutions (Buss, 2015; Van Vugt & Schaller, 2008). For example, the social brain hypothesis suggests that our large brains (and particularly the neo-cortex), as the locus of human mind, were developed primarily to allow humans to live in social groups and solve adaptive problems (Dunbar, 1998). Many characteristics of humans, such as language, design of group work, the ability to detect cheaters, and the pursuit of dominance and prestige, also evolved primarily in the process of living in groups (Dunbar, 1998). As such, the explanatory power of evolutionary perspectives in the social sciences, such as psychology, management, education, political science, law, and marketing, is being increasingly acknowledged and leveraged (Roberts, 2012). Notably, an evolutionary perspective is particularly relevant to the study of structural empowerment and leadership—key topics of interest in the field of management (Nicholson, 2012). Although management in a very recent phenomenon in the span of human evolutionary time, its fundamental principles are based upon social aspects of human existence that are as old as our species. Across evolutionary time, human beings have always worked together and coordinated their efforts by means of authority and organization. A set of developed systems to deal with social problems enable humans to adapt to varying environmental contingencies in consideration of the relatively unchanging evolved human nature (Nicholson, 2012; Tomasello et 20 al., 2012). For example, human groups set the rules of the game to suit environmental conditions and constrain human instinct, thereby achieving successful coordination among interdependent members in times of chaos and sufferings created by scarcity of resources in the environment. Thus, humans tend to be highly attentive to how the social rule or hierarchy is constructed in their environment and strive for prestige and dominance to maximize their chances of survival and prosperity (Cheng et al., 2013). Given the impact of authority and organization throughout human history, an evolutionary perspective can provide insights into how humans deal with issues in management in order to maximize their chances of survival and prosperity. Structural empowerment, as one of the most important work design features in contemporary organizations, is associated with adaptive social problems that humans have been dealing with across evolutionary time. According to an evolutionary perspective of the design of work, an evolutionary perspective can address “the adaptive challenges it [work design] presents and the strategies people enact to meet those challenges” (Nicholson, 2010, p. 428). In hunter- gatherer societies, large game hunting, food foraging, and defense against invaders require systems or methods working together in groups. These work systems or methods helped members to work interdependently and systematically in order to effectively deal with scarcity of resources in the environment and ensure the survival of the group and its members (Nicholson, 2010). Ever since hunter-gatherer time, human groups had to solve an array of adaptive problems, such as how to divide the work and how to coordinate the efforts of the group success (Clutton-Brock, 2002; Tomasello et al., 2012). In addition to the use of a centralized system in which individuals at the top of the social hierarchy hold all of the decision-making power and control, decentralization of authority and responsibility is another popular way to deal with coordination problems working in large social groups. Indeed, evolutionary theorists suggest that 21 “the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of our ancestors enforced a loose egalitarianism and leadership roles were distributed among the group” (Spisak et al., 2011, p. 178; see also Whiten, 1999). Moreover, across evolutionary time, authority and responsibility associated with structural empowerment are valued for survival and prosperity. Individuals with authority and responsibility tend to enjoy easy access to resources, admiration, and an ability to control one’s own outcomes, thereby resulting in greater chances for reproductive success and improved well- being (e.g., Cheng & Tracy, 2014; Maner & Case, 2016). Given its implications for evolved human desire for both prestige (e.g., admiration) and dominance (e.g., control), individuals pay close attention to structural empowerment and strongly react to it. Thus, an evolutionary perspective is a relevant theoretical framework for understanding the consequences of structural empowerment. An evolutionary perspective is also relevant to the study of leadership (e.g., Spisak et al., 2011; van Vugt, 2006; Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). Many aspects of group living involving collective action necessitated the emergence of a group leader, i.e., a group member who speaks up and provides direction while others follow that direction (Van Vugt et al., 2008). In particular, over evolutionary time, human groups required leadership that could coordinate essential activities of resource acquisition and sharing in the contexts of resource scarcity and interdependence because these activities are directly relevant to the critical issues of survival and prosperity (Flack, Girvan, de Waal, & Krakauer, 2006; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; Spisak et al., 2011; Spisak, O'Brien, Nicholson, & van Vugt, 2015). Due to its legitimate power to enforce the social order and mobilize collective actions, leadership played a key role as one of the principal devices for attaining and sharing resources (King, Johnson, & van Vugt, 2009; van Vugt, 2006; van Vugt et al., 2008). 22 In summary, in studying structural empowerment and manager’s resource exchanges, adopting an evolutionary psychology perspective may provide useful insights into how managers navigate structural empowerment. Notably, the existing literature has not provided a convincing theory that incorporates the comprehensive outcomes of structural empowerment. In understanding the link between structural empowerment and group functioning, the literature on evolutionary psychology can provide a comprehensive framework with regards to how individual differences and environmental conditions guide human reactions to adaptive social problems such as structural empowerment (Buss, 2015). Drawing on this insight, I identify individual differences (i.e., prestige and dominance orientations) as well as environmental constraints (i.e., resource scarcity and outcome interdependence) as key boundary conditions, based on an evolutionary psychology perspective, for understanding the downstream consequences of structural empowerment. Prestige and Dominance Orientations. The literature on evolutionary psychology highlights individual differences due to their role in shaping how humans cope with social adaptive problems (Buss, 2015). Thus, the literature has identified human characteristics that operate powerfully in contemporary humans (Buss, 2009a; Figueredo et al., 2005). According to evolutionary perspectives, individual differences have emerged because of different but functionally adaptive ways to adjust to social environments (Nettle, 2006; Huang, Ryan, Zabel, & Palmer, 2014). Among thousands of potentially available cues in the environment, individual differences determine the specific cues that become psychologically relevant (Buss, 2009a). In understanding the consequences of structural empowerment, from an evolutionary perspective, individual differences in how people prefer to exert social influence is of paramount importance. This is because the pursuit of social influence is a pervasive, recurrent, and universal feature of 23 human societies (Cheng et al., 2013). In contemporary business worlds, structural empowerment provides an opportunity for managers to exercise influence on various social groups. Notably, the evolutionary study of humans has revealed prestige and dominance orientations as fundamental individual differences in how people respond to opportunities for social influence (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Cheng et al., 2013).2 Evolutionary psychologists suggest that the concepts of dominance and prestige orientations provide “a basis for understanding the distal forces that shape preferences for social models and processes of social influence” (Cheng et al., 2013, p. 119). Prestige orientation is conceptualized as a desire for respect and admiration and a tendency for seeking social approval of others (Cheng et al., 2013; Maner & Case, 2016). Dominance orientation is conceptualized as the desire for authority over others and a tendency for maintaining subordination through tight control (Cheng et al., 2013; Maner & Case, 2016). Prestige and dominance orientations are the products of our species’ evolved tendencies to follow and learn from those who garner respect and admiration (i.e., prestige) and to submit to those who wield force and intimidation (i.e., dominance). Over evolutionary time, the prevalence of agonistic conflicts over material resources (e.g., food, mates) in human social life resulted in the evolution of domination orientation (Cheng & Tracy, 2014). When exercised properly, dominance-oriented behaviors can be adaptive by minimizing the frequency of hostile encounters and associated costs, thus ultimately enhancing the fitness of relevant social groups (Cheng & Tracy, 2014). Dominance-oriented 2 Although labeled differently, similar contrasts have also been observed by scholars such as “selfish” leaders vs. “servant” leaders (Gillet, Cartwright, & Van Vugt, 2011), “forceful” leaders vs. “persuasive” leaders (Karckle, 1978), “autocratic” vs. “democratic” leaders (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939), and “resource-holding potential” vs. “social attention holding power” (e.g., Gilbert, Price, & Allan, 1995). Prestige and dominance orientations are utilized in this paper because they are directly rooted in evolutionary accounts of leadership and social influence and have received strong empirical support for its discriminative and predictive validity (Cheng et al., 2013). 24 behaviors are also common among nonhuman species and they persist in contemporary human societies as manifested in the forms of aggression, violence, and agonistic conflicts (Chase, Tovey, Spangler-Martin, & Manfredonia, 2002; Johnson, Burk, & Kirkpatrick, 2007). In contrast, prestige orientation is relatively unique to humans, because it is considered originating from the evolution of cultural learning capacities in human groups (Cheng et al., 2013). In human societies, natural selection favored those who have a capacity to attend to and acquire high quality information from successful others, but in nonhuman primates and other animals, such capacity tends to be less developed (Boyd & Richerson, 1985, 2009). The emphasis on cultural learning capacity in human societies enables individuals with skills, abilities, and knowledge to have influence on others by becoming prestigious role models (Boyd & Richerson, 1985, 2009; Cheng, Kornienko, & Granger, 2018; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). Prestige and dominance orientations have a common theoretical underpinning as evolved psychological mechanisms for social influence. Thus, prestige and dominance orientations are somewhat intertwined with one another. For example, Maner (2016) noted that the correlations between prestige and dominance orientations ranged from .30 to .65 across different studies. However, given that prestige and dominance orientations originated from distinct selection pressures, they are likely to be related to distinct patterns of behavior and psychological characteristics (Cheng et al., 2013; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). Indeed, the pursuit of dominance and prestige has been shown to be associated with different suites of personality traits, interpersonal styles, and even hormone responses. For example, individuals predisposed to pursue prestige tend to be high in conscientiousness, agreeableness, and self-esteem, whereas those predisposed to pursue dominance tend to be assertive, narcissistic, and manipulative (Cheng et al. 2013). Moreover, prosocial interpersonal styles, such as altruism, concern for the 25 public good, helpfulness, and ethicality, are found to be positively associated with prestige, but negatively with dominance (Cheng et al., 2013; Maner & Mead, 2010).3 Finally, research finds that basal testosterone (i.e., an androgenic hormone linked to aggression) is lower among prestigious individuals than among dominant individuals (Giammanco, Tabacchi, Giammanco, Di Majo, & La Guardia, 2005; Johnson et al. 2007). The measures to capture prestige and dominance orientations also have been shown to be psychometrically distinct (Case, Bae, & Maner, 2018; Cassidy & Lynn, 1989) and to predict different psychological states and behaviors among leaders (e.g., Case & Maner, 2014; Case et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2007; Mead & Maner, 2012). In summary, despite the commonality of prestige and dominance orientations as indicators for humans’ desire for social influence, they are conceptually and empirically distinct. The orthogonality of prestige and dominance orientations has been demonstrated in prior research (Cheng et al., 2010, 2013), suggesting that individuals can be concurrently high (or low) in both orientations as opposed to being high in one orientation and necessarily low in the other orientation. Later in the hypothesis development section, I explain how prestige and dominance 3 Importantly, although prestige orientation is generally related to prosocial, other-oriented tendencies whereas dominance orientation is generally related to ego-centric, self-oriented tendencies of individuals, they are conceptually distinct. The concepts of prestige and dominance orientations are rooted in evolutionary perspectives of how people exercise social influence and rise through the social ranks. In contrast, other similar concepts of prosocial orientation, ego-centric orientation, self-concern, and other concern are rooted in the social psychology literature and do not necessarily tap into the domains of social influence. Thus, unique patterns emerge in how prestige- and dominance- oriented individuals behave in different contexts. For example, prestige-oriented (or dominance-oriented) leaders will not always act prosocially (or selfishly) depending on whether doing so helps them rise through the social ranks whereas prosocial, other-oriented (or ego-centric, self-oriented) individuals consistently engage in prosocial behaviors (or selfish behaviors). For example, Case and colleagues (2018) found that prestige-oriented leaders may prioritize their own benefits of increasing popularity over the benefits of their groups. Also, Magee and Langner (2008) found that in contexts associated with caring for others’ well-being, dominance- oriented individuals (i.e., socialized power motivation in their study) tend to make prosocial decisions for others. 26 orientations guide manager’s two unique types of cognitive processing of structural empowerment: psychological empowerment and psychological entitlement. Resource Scarcity. According to an evolutionary psychology perspective, natural environments where humans evolved are characterized by substantial oscillations in the availability of resources (Pitesa & Thau, 2018). Indeed, resource scarcity, which is defined as “the extent to which available resources are not sufficient to support the sustained growth or survival of organizational entities” (Faraj & Yan, 2009, p. 608), has been a consistent and recurring selection pressure on managing social groups to solve various coordination problems (Spisak et al., 2011). Although the types of resources that are scare in the contemporary society may be different from those in the ancestral environment, humans evolved sensitivity to scarcity of resources that can potentially impact their survival and prosperity. Indeed, research has shown that resource scarcity shapes human motivation and behavior in modern society (Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton, & Robertson, 2011; Hill, Rodeheffer, Griskevicius, Durante, & White, 2012). Notably, resource scarcity operates in two different domains: resource scarcity in my group and resource scarcity in other subgroups within a collective. Humans lived for a long time in extended clan formations and the kinship-based closeness between subgroups tends to be weak (Spisak et al., 2011). Moreover, the fitness of all humans commonly increases with the size of their organization, because the more people you have, the higher the capacity to produce food, to protect from predators, to disperse in large subgroups, or to raise a child (Clutton-Brock, 2002; Henrich, 2004). Thus, human groups faced recurring challenges of coordinating interrelations among the sub-groups of large aggregations (Clutton-Brock, 2002; Spisak et al., 2015; Tomasello et al., 2012). For example, humans evolved “group-mindedness” that enables them to associate 27 themselves with a broader community (e.g., organizations, societies, and communities) while working and living in subgroups (Clutton-Brock, 2002; Tomasello et al., 2012). In addition to resource scarcity in their own group, therefore, resource scarcity in other groups within the same organization is relevant to the survival of the focal group because they are connected and interdependent within a large aggregation (Tomasello et al., 2012). If other groups are in trouble and thus extinct or not functioning, the focal group’s likelihood of survival also decreases (e.g., reduction in manpower to mobilize for warfare or for a large-scale hunting; Spisak et al., 2011, 2015; Tomasello et al., 2012). Thus, humans pay close attention to resource scarcity in other groups as well as resource scarcity in their own group. Later in the hypothesis development section, I describe how resource scarcity (in the leader’s group and in other groups) triggers two different types of behavioral reactions of empowered and entitled managers: external resource sharing and external resource acquisition. Outcome Interdependence. From an evolutionary psychological perspective, different behavioral strategies, as the products of evolved psychological mechanisms, developed because these were adaptive under different conditions (Buss, 2015). Thus, to be successful, specific behavioral strategies must be aligned with the situational features that pose relevant problems that these behavioral strategies were directed to solve (Buss, 2015; Li, van Vugt, & Colarelli, 2018). This is also consistent with contingency models of leadership, which suggests that the effectiveness of specific leader behaviors varies in response to the changes in the demands of the situation (Fiedler, 1964; Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy, & Stogdill, 1974). Drawing on the Interdependence Hypothesis that has a basis in evolutionary psychology (Tomasello et al., 2012), I suggest that outcome interdependence provides a context in which manager’s sharing of resources with other groups pays off (i.e., intergroup group outcome 28 interdependence) and group managers invest acquired resources in improving group functioning (i.e., intragroup outcome interdependence). Interdependence has posed a recurrent challenge in the evolution of human cooperation throughout evolutionary history. For example, the emergence of foraging bands increases the interdependence of members because it generates mutually beneficial rewards that outweigh what solo foraging might be able to provide (Tomasello et al., 2012). Individuals may not be able to hunt a large animal by oneself but by collaborating with others, they can ensure at least some levels of meat although their individual portion might be smaller. Thus, members take different but mutually interdependent roles (e.g., in hunting, observer, chaser, attacker, carrier, etc.) in order to share the outcomes (e.g., meat). According to the Interdependence Hypothesis, interdependence creates a situational condition in which collaboration benefits all involved parties. Specifically, applying the Interdependence Hypothesis to organizational settings, I define outcome interdependence as “the degree to which significant consequences of the work—such as goal attainment and tangible rewards—are contingent on collective performance” (Wageman, 1995, p. 146).4 I further distinguish two types of outcome interdependence: intergroup outcome interdependence and intragroup outcome interdependence. When intergroup outcome interdependence is high, different groups within an organization need to cooperate with one another in order to achieve desirable outcomes such as goal attainment and tangible rewards for all. When intragroup outcome interdependence is high, group managers need to collaborate with their members in order to achieve desirable outcomes. As detailed in the hypothesis section, I 4 According to the Theory of Cooperation and Competition (Tjosvold, 1998), two forms of outcome interdependence exist: cooperative and competitive outcome interdependence. Under cooperative outcome interdependence, organizational members perceive that they benefit from each other’s performance. Under competitive outcome interdependence, organizational members perceive that when others lose, they win and vice versa. I focus on cooperative outcome interdependence in this study (De Dreu, 2007). 29 suggest that intergroup outcome interdependence facilitates the successful transition of manager’s external resource sharing into group performance and intragroup outcome interdependence facilitates the successful transition of manager’s external resource acquisition into group performance. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT EMPOWERED OR ENTITLED TO LEAD? Manager’s Interpretation of Structural Empowerment. I articulate how prestige and dominance orientations guide managers’ cognitive processing of structural empowerment. Structural empowerment can be a trigger of both psychological empowerment and psychological entitlement because it provides sources of responsibility, leadership, influence, control, and power over others. However, depending on their orientations for prestige and dominance, managers may focus on different cues that structural empowerment provides (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). According to the evolutionary psychological perspectives, individual differences shape human cognitive processing. For example, Buss (2009a, p. 241) noted, “the same objectively available cues are differentially psychologically salient as a consequence of adaptive individual differences.” For example, prestige-oriented managers may focus on community-related cues of structural empowerment (e.g., trust and well-being of the group) whereas dominance-oriented mangers may focus on agency-based cues of structural empowerment (e.g., superiority and self-interest). Thus, guided by prestige and dominance orientations, managers subjectively construct their own reality and have unique cognitive experiences as consequences of structural empowerment. In understanding managers’ cognitive processing of structural empowerment, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) suggest that individuals go through the three cognitive processes of 30 ‘evaluation’ (i.e., how well things are going), ‘attribution’ (what may have caused past events), and ‘envisioning’ (what could do in the future) in interpreting structural empowerment (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). As for the evaluation process, both prestige- and dominance-oriented managers share a positive evaluation about structural empowerment because they consider it as a positive reinforcement (i.e., success). However, they are likely to differ in why organizations allow them to have structural empowerment (i.e., attribution) and what they want to accomplish in the future with structural empowerment (i.e., envisioning). These differences in interpretive processes, guided by their evolved tendency of prestige and dominance orientations, lead structural empowerment to result in the two distinct cognitive processes of managers: psychological empowerment and psychological entitlement. Prestige-Oriented Managers: Psychological Empowerment. I suggest that when managers are high in prestige orientation, structural empowerment fosters a greater sense of psychological empowerment in managers. I expect this because prestige-oriented managers are likely to view structural empowerment as an indicator of organization’s trust in them and an opportunity for prosocial influence. Psychological empowerment is conceptualized as an active orientation in which an individual “wishes and feels able to shape his or her work role and context” (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1444). Psychological empowerment is malleable, and prior research shows that organizations can improve members’ psychological empowerment when benevolent exchanges occur between the company and the managers (e.g., social exchange theory; Keller & Dansereau, 1995) and organizations provide opportunities for influence (e.g., self-determination theory; Liden et al., 2000). In attributing the cause of structural empowerment, managers with high prestige orientation are likely to perceive that structural empowerment is allowed because organizations 31 trust them as the ones who take care of wellbeing of the group. Trust is at the core of empowerment initiatives because the successful transfer of authority and responsibility to lower organizational levels depend in large part on organizations’ belief that those lower down can be trusted and will not abuse their power (Burke, 1986; Gómez & Rosen, 2001; McAllister, 1995). In seeking freely-conferred respect and admiration from others, prestige-oriented individuals develop relationship-based understanding of social hierarchy: to be vested with greater authority and responsibility, others must trust and like them (Maner & Case, 2016). Thus, when prestige- oriented managers are empowered by the organization, they are likely to believe that this is because they are trusted by the organization as the ones who are willing to put the group’s interest ahead of their own. Prestige-oriented individuals’ relationship-focused understanding of social hierarchy and collective orientation are well documented in the literature. Research suggests that prestige- oriented individuals pay more attention to others and they tend to have a stronger belief in others’ prosocial intentions (Maner & Case, 2016; Maner et al., 2005). Moreover, those high in prestige orientation prioritize the success of the group even though doing so may siphon away some of their advantages (Case & Maner, 2014; Mead & Maner, 2010). Thus, due to their relationship- based viewpoint of the social world, structural empowerment is likely to indicate that organizations trust them as a leader who will take good care of the group. According to a social exchange perspective of empowerment, manager’s perception of being trusted by the company will lead to psychological empowerment because trust promotes an active orientation to shape one’s work role in order to reciprocate and benefit the company (Gómez & Rosen, 2001; Keller & Dansereau, 1995). 32 Moreover, in envisioning what they can accomplish with structural empowerment, those high in prestige orientation are likely to perceive it as a greater opportunity for prosocial influence. Managers with high prestige orientation look for opportunities to signal their kindness, warmth, and social attractiveness to others. This is because they have a desire for freely- conferred respect and admiration from others, which promotes prosocial tendencies of prestige- oriented individuals. Organizational members tend to value altruistic behaviors as characteristics of good leaders and confer them with greater admiration and deference (Hardy & van Vugt 2006; Spisak et al., 2011; Willer, 2009). Indeed, research finds that prosocial actions are often rooted in concerns on reputation and popularity (e.g., Case et al., 2018; Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh, 2010). Structural empowerment provides an opportunity for prestige-oriented managers to exercise prosocial influence as a leader. According to the self-determination view of empowerment, opportunities for influence in the domains that individuals have intrinsic interest in are important triggers of psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996). For prestige-oriented managers who have genuine interest in gaining respect and admiration, authority and responsibility indicate more opportunities to pursue this interest by exercising prosocial influence. Thus, structural empowerment will boost psychological empowerment when managers are high in prestige orientation. It is noteworthy though that those high in prestige orientation are not necessarily purely prosocial and other-oriented. That is, they take care of their relationships with others as the means of moving up the social ranks because their view of social hierarchy is about respect and admiration, not necessarily because they have genuine interest in others. Indeed, Case et al. (2018) demonstrated that prestige-oriented individuals prioritize popularity over performance in a way that when they face a situation where they need to make a decision in public, they prefer to 33 follow group members’ preference regardless of its impact on group success because they seek social approvals. Thus, what guides their interpretation of structural empowerment is their view of social hierarchy, not their genuine interest in others. It is important to consider an alternative possibility that dominance orientation may also moderate the relation of structural empowerment with psychological empowerment. However, I suggest that prestige orientation is more theoretically relevant as a moderator for the link between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment. This is because for people to feel empowered, they need to experience a genuine sense of enjoyment at work. For example, Spreizter (1995) and Thomas and Velthouse (1990) conceptualized psychological empowerment as a form of intrinsic motivation. Notably, Cheng et al. (2010) found that dominance orientation is unrelated related to genuine feelings of accomplishment, confidence, and success. Instead, dominance orientation was positively related to individuals’ interest in extrinsic and instrumental values. Moreover, Ayala Calvo and Garcia (2018) found that structural empowerment is significantly related to psychological empowerment when middle managers have high levels of genuine enjoyment of challenge and hold strong commitment at work (i.e., hardiness in their study). The relation between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment was non- significant when middle managers are low on these characteristics. Given its weak relation to genuine sense of accomplishment and competence, I suggest that dominance orientation is less relevant as a moderator for the link between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment. In summary, going beyond prior research which has shown that structural empowerment is an antecedent of psychological empowerment (e.g., Logan & Ganster, 2007; Spreitzer, 1996), I suggest that the effect of structural empowerment on psychological empowerment can differ 34 across different managers. Among managers with high prestige orientation, structural empowerment will lead to psychological empowerment because these managers are likely to perceive that they are trusted by the company and consider structural empowerment as an opportunity for prosocial influence (see Figure 2). In contrast, when managers are low in prestige orientation, structural empowerment is less likely to lead to psychological empowerment because these managers do not care as much about perception of being trusted and opportunities for prosocial influence. For managers with low prestige orientation, the impact of structural empowerment on psychological empowerment will be weaker (i.e., a weaker positive or null relation) because the cues provided by structural empowerment are less relevant to them. Thus, I predict: Hypothesis 1: The relation of structural empowerment with psychological empowerment is moderated by prestige orientation, such that structural empowerment will be more positively related to psychological empowerment when managers are higher (vs. lower) in prestige orientation. 35 Figure 2 – Proposed Interaction for Psychological Empowerment 5 4 3 2 t n e m r e w o p m E l a c i g o l o h c y s P Low Prestige Orientation High Prestige Orientation Low Structural Empowerment High Structural Empowerment Dominance-Oriented Managers: Psychological Entitlement. Structural empowerment can promote psychological entitlement because it provides privileged access to decision-making authority, influence, and others’ acknowledgment of a person’s special position. However, I suggest that the effect of structural empowerment on psychological entitlement differs across individuals. Specifically, structural empowerment leads to manager’s greater sense of entitlement when managers are high in dominance orientation. This is because they tend to attribute the cause of empowerment to their superiority and envision personal benefits associated with structural empowerment. Psychological entitlement is defined as one’s sense that he or she deserves special or unique treatment relative to others (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004; O’Leary-Kelly, Rosen, & Hochwarter, 2017). Although prior research has focused on entitlement as a stable individual difference, recent works suggest that psychological 36 entitlement is malleable and can be changed as a result of one’s own action or a situational trigger. For example, research demonstrates that one’s own action (e.g., superior performance and prosocial actions; Vincent & Kouchaki, 2016; Yam, Klotz, He, & Reynolds, 2017) as well as an environment constraint (e.g., unfair treatment, Zitek, Jordan, Monin, & Leach, 2010) can shape one’s sense of entitlement. Managers high in dominance orientation are likely to attribute the cause of structural empowerment to their superiority. Their view on social hierarchy is based upon control and power over others. Thus, they pay a close attention to social cues that can speak to their superior position in social hierarchy. Indeed, research demonstrates that individuals high in dominance tend to consistently look for ways of getting ahead and advocate discriminatory ideologies involving the legitimacy of one’s dominance over others, the allocation of more perks to oneself but not to others, and the deservingness of discrimination against particular social groups (Buss, 2015; Cheng et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2007; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). According to this view, the authority and responsibility provided by structural empowerment is an indicator of greater control over others, which promotes dominant-oriented individuals’ sense of superiority. This is consistent with prior research showing that as some individuals gain greater authority with higher rank, they tend to manifest more egoistic and narcissistic tendencies (Brunell et al., 2008). Thus, among managers with high dominance orientation, structural empowerment is construed as a way of satisfying their desire for control and power and structural empowerment results in increased psychological entitlement. Moreover, in envisioning what they can accomplish with structural empowerment, those high in dominance orientation are likely to become more input-focused and try to accrue more personal benefits associated with structural empowerment. Given their view on social hierarchy 37 as greater power and control relative to others, dominant individuals tend to prioritize self- over other interests (Maner & Mead, 2010) and disregard the well-being of others (Cheng & Tracy, 2014). For example, research shows that dominance-oriented leaders prioritize their own gains over those of others when they face a choice between personal benefits and group success (Maner & Mead, 2010). Dominance-oriented leaders also have been shown to prefer to monopolize resources such as information and access to valuable individuals (Maner & Case, 2016). Notably, those high in dominance orientation, with their thirst for power and control, have more positive perceptions of greed and thus they tend to want more as they gain more (Bendahan, Zehnder, Pralong, & Antonakis, 2015; Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza-Denton, & Keltner, 2012; Tett, 2009; Wang & Murnighan, 2011). As a result, when dominance-oriented managers have greater authority and responsibility, they are likely to seek out more personal benefits rather than become satisfied. The sense of deservingness is at the core of psychological entitlement (Campbell et al., 2004; Seuntjens, Zeelenberg, Van de Ven, & Breugelmans, 2015). It is noteworthy that the moderating effect of dominance orientation is not necessarily driven by self-orientation but by their view of social hierarchy as power and control. That is, those high in dominance orientation focus on social cues related to power and control, which lead them to interpret structural empowerment as an opportunity for moving up the social ranks by gaining greater control and power. Self-orientation per se does not drive such interpretation because structural empowerment, from a self-interest point of view, is not always beneficial for one’s own interest because it often involves more responsibilities and duties (Maynard et al., 2012; Spreitzer, 1996). Thus, self-oriented individuals do not necessarily feel entitled as a consequence of structural empowerment whereas dominance-oriented individuals feel entitled 38 due to their interpretation of structural empowerment as an indicator of greater power and control. An alternative possibility is that prestige orientation may also moderate the link between structural empowerment and psychological entitlement, yet I suggest that dominance orientation is more theoretically relevant as a moderator of this link because of its ties to ego-centric tendencies. For people to feel entitled, they need to have an ego-based worldview because psychological entitlement is about an inflated self-worth and sense of deservingness. Studies found that prestige orientation is unrelated or even negatively related to inflated self-worth. For example, Cheng et al. (2010) found that dominance orientation is significantly related to self- aggrandizement tendency and hubristic pride whereas prestige orientation is unrelated to self- aggrandizement tendency and negatively related to hubristic pride. Moreover, studies find that prestige-oriented individuals tend to focus on sharing their resources with others rather than keeping them to themselves (Maner & Case, 2016; Mead & Maner, 2012). Thus, prestige- oriented leaders are less likely to feel deserving as a consequence of structural empowerment. In summary, building upon prior work that speaks to the possibility that structural empowerment may promote psychological entitlement due to its access to a special position of authority and responsibility in social hierarchy (e.g., Galinsky et al., 2008; Pitesa & Thau, 2013), I further suggest that the effect of structural empowerment on psychological entitlement is likely to differ across individuals. That is, structural empowerment leads to greater sense of entitlement when managers are high in dominance orientation because these managers are likely to attribute the cause of empowerment to their superiority and anticipate more personal benefits (see Figure 3). In contrast, when managers are low in dominance orientation, structural empowerment is less likely to lead to psychological entitlement because these managers are less concerned about 39 perceived superiority and more personal benefits. For managers with low dominance orientation, the impact of structural empowerment on psychological entitlement will be weaker (i.e., a weaker positive or null relation) because the cues provided by structural empowerment are less relevant to them. Hypothesis 2: The relation of structural empowerment with psychological entitlement is moderated by dominance orientation, such that structural empowerment will be more positively related to psychological entitlement when managers are higher (vs. lower) in dominance orientation. Figure 3 – Proposed Interaction for Psychological Entitlement 5 4 3 2 t n e m e l t i t n E l a c i g o l o h c y s P Low Dominance Orientation High Dominance Orientation Low Structural Empowerment High Structural Empowerment INTER-GROUP BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES Introduction to External Resource Exchanges. I examine two types of external resource exchanges as outcomes of psychologically empowered or entitled managers in the 40 context of high levels of resource scarcity: resource acquisition and resource sharing (Nicholson, 2010; Van Vugt, 2006). From an evolutionary perspective, these two resource exchanges are essential for group survival and prosperity. Admittedly, vital to human survival, growth, and development is the acquisition of sufficient levels of resources (Spisak et al., 2011). In addition, resource sharing is of paramount importance over human evolutionary history due to its contributions to adaptability to changing environments. Human groups constantly experienced a transition between viable habitats and needed to help one another in response to changing patterns of migrating prey, vegetation, and sources of water (Harari, 2015). Sharing resources (e.g., in hunter-gatherer societies, food, manpower, tools, and techniques) was a way of ensuring essential resources and a means of maintaining peace, establishing a friendship, or reconciling after a conflict (Spisak et al., 2011). Thus, resource sharing has been a major social activity for humans and one of the central focus in evolutionary psychology (Buss, 2015; Park, Chae, & Choi, 2017). In contemporary organizations, the greater needs of adaptability and flexibility have changed organizations into a more organic form, which necessitates each group to take more initiatives for resource acquisition and sharing (Druskat &. Wheeler, 2003; Lee & Edmondson, 2017; Volberda, 1996). In particular, group managers, as representors of groups and agents of organizations, substantially influence resource exchange processes within an organization (Yukl, 2012). With structural empowerment, managers take greater initiatives for these resource exchanges processes, including lobbying for resources and cooperating with other groups, because organizations encourage them to take greater responsibility and make a broader range of decisions for group functioning (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Yukl, 2012). In doing so, group managers can provide their group by acquiring essential resources and 41 assistance from upper-level management and they can also improve group functioning and contribute to organizational effectiveness by sharing resources and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with other groups within the organization (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Yukl, 2012). Thus, researchers suggest that group manager’s external activities play a key role in group success (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Yukl, 2012). As representative forms of manager’s external activities, guided by the lens of evolutionary psychology, I examine external resource sharing and resource acquisition. In this dissertation, given its application to organizational settings, I define resource as a set of resources necessary for surviving and performing group tasks, including financial resources, personnel, technology (or equipment), and knowledge (Chelladurai, 1985; Gibson & Dibble, 2013; Moenaert, Deschoolmeester, De Meyer, & Barbé, 1990; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Verdú & Gómez-Gras, 2009). Psychologically Empowered Managers: Resource Scarcity and External Resource Sharing. I suggest that empowered managers will share more resources externally when they find that other groups in the organization lack necessary resources. According to an evolutionary psychology perspective, human mind is sensitive to particular forms of contextual input and the combination of one’s psychological mechanism and relevant context leads to certain forms of human behavior (Buss, 2015). Psychological empowerment, by definition, is an active orientation in which an individual feels capable of shaping her/his work role and context. Fueled by the desire for influence, psychologically empowered managers are likely to be reactive to particular social cues in the environment that implicate opportunities for influence such as resource scarcity in other groups. Thus, I suggest that the combination of manager’s sense of 42 empowerment and the context of resource scarcity in other groups will lead to greater levels of manager’s external resource sharing. Specifically, resource scarcity in other groups presents opportunities for psychologically empowered managers to fulfill their desire for influence in two important ways. First, by engaging in external resource sharing, managers with psychological empowerment can realize their inner characteristics of competence, impact, meaning, and self-determination (Spreitzer, 1996). With high levels of sense of competence and control over the environment, these managers pursue meaning of their work and prefer to make their own choice without interruption (Spreitzer, 1996). External resource sharing is less likely to be mandatory because it costs them their own resources. The decision to share resources with others is based upon their voluntary choice to go extra mile to be helpful (Lam, Wan, & Roussin, 2016). Moreover, when other groups lack sufficient resources, helping other groups in need can be a fulfilling, meaningful experience for them because they can feel that their actions make significant differences in others’ lives (Grant, 2012). In contrast, when other groups are abundant in resources, these managers may not consider provision of extra resources necessary or impactful. Thus, when other groups need these resources, psychologically empowered managers are more likely to share resources externally because it is an opportunity for them to realize their inner characteristics for competence, impact, meaningfulness, and self-determination (Lee, Bradburn, Johnson, Lin, & Chang, 2019). Second, given psychologically empowered managers’ strong desire for influence, sharing valuable resources can provide an opportunity to signal their desirable qualities to others and feel important and impactful. The potential for enhancing one’s sense of influence by sharing resources with others is suggested by Costly Signaling Theory (Zahavi, 1977; McAndrew, 2002). 43 Costly Signaling Theory identifies “resource sharing as a form of signaling by which individuals flaunt their hidden qualities” (Park et al., 2017, p. 23). The signaling effect of their desirable qualities, such as generosity, warmth, and kindness, is stronger in the condition of resource scarcity because those who lack resources see such display of costly acts (i.e., resource sharing) more expensive and desirable (Park et al., 2017). Indeed, research suggests that recipients are more favorable to the offered help and find it more powerful when they clearly recognize the need for the help (Lee et al., 2019). Thus, sharing resources when other groups actually need them can increase the likelihood that empowered managers can signal their desirable qualities and feel impactful. It is also possible that resource scarcity in the managers’ immediate group (i.e., their own group) may moderate the relation of psychological empowerment and external resource sharing. However, the moderating effect of resource scarcity in their own group on the link between psychological empowerment and external resource sharing is tenuous. On the one hand, the resource constraint in their own group may weaken the link between managers’ sense of psychological empowerment and external resource sharing because they may want to take good care of their own group by prioritizing their group’s interest over others. On the other hand, it is also possible that psychologically empowered managers may not care much about their environmental constraints (e.g., resource scarcity in their own group) due to their competence and desire for impact. Indeed, Liden and colleagues (2000) found that psychologically empowered individuals tend to enjoy challenges they encounter. Thus, whether resource scarcity in the manager’s own group will moderate the relation of psychological empowerment and external resource sharing is unclear. 44 In summary, psychologically empowered managers are more likely to share resources externally when other groups lack resources because it is aligned with their inner desire for competence, impact, meaningfulness, and self-determination and they can also strongly signal their desirable qualities and enjoy sense of their social influence (see Figure 4). In contrast, when resource scarcity in other groups is low, psychological empowerment is less likely to lead to resource sharing with other groups because managers perceive less opportunities for fulfilling their inner desire and signaling their impact. It is noteworthy that psychologically empowered managers are likely to share resources with others regardless of whether others need them or not due to their active orientation and prosocial tendencies. For example, empirical studies have shown strong positive relations of psychological empowerment with a broad range of prosocial behaviors such as helping, voice, and taking charge (e.g,. Seibert et al., 2011). Thus, I expect a weaker positive relationship when resource scarcity in other groups is low. Thus, I predict: Hypothesis 3: The relation of psychological empowerment with external resource sharing is moderated by resource scarcity in other groups, such that psychological empowerment will be more positively related to external resource sharing when resource scarcity in other groups is higher (vs. lower). 45 Figure 4 – Proposed Interaction for External Resource Sharing 5 4 3 2 g n i r a h S e c r u o s e R l a n r e t x E Low Resource Scarcity in Other Groups High Resource Scarcity in Other Groups Low Psychological High Psychological Empowerment Empowerment Psychologically Entitled Managers: Resource Scarcity and External Resource Acquisition. I suggest that psychologically entitled managers will acquire more resources from the upper level management when they find that their own groups lack necessary resources. An evolutionary perspective suggests that individuals differ in their sensitivity to particular forms of situational cues, which shapes their experiences and behaviors (Buss, 2009a). At the core of psychological entitlement is the belief that one deserves more than other people (Campbell et al., 2004). Due to their inflated sense of deservingness, competitive mindset, and self-centered understanding of the world, the situation of resource scarcity in their group is especially salient to entitled managers and they strongly react to it by claiming more resource support. Specifically, psychologically entitled managers have extremely high expectation of how they should be treated. Individuals high in psychological entitlement tend to have a grandiose 46 self-view and expect exclusive, preferential treatment (Brouer, Wallace, & Harvey, 2011; Hochwarter, Summers, Thompson, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2010; Moeller, Crocker, & Bushman, 2009). Thus, the situation of resource scarcity is especially troubling to entitled individuals because it reflects not only absence of special treatment but also lack of any regular treatment. Thus, there is a greater level of violation when resource scarcity in their own group is high, thereby leading to negative attitudes among entitled managers. Indeed, research demonstrates that entitled individuals tend to be angry, aggressive, and demanding of those individuals around them when they experience violations of their expectations (Campbell et al., 2004; Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004). Moreover, resource scarcity triggers competitive mindset of psychologically entitled managers, which leads to their aggressive attempts to acquire more resources. Previous research has shown that individuals with a strong sense of entitlement put their own needs ahead of others (Harvey & Martinko, 2009), make competitive choices in a commons dilemma (Campbell et al., 2004), and engage in self-serving resource allocations at work (Moeller et al., 2009; Zitek et al., 2010). According to an evolutionary perspective, individuals become more intensely competitive when there is limited resource in the environment (Buss, 2015; Prediger, Vollan, & Herrmann, 2014). Thus, resource scarcity in their group is likely to activate a strong competitive mindset of entitled managers, leading to a higher level of resource claiming as a consequence of psychological entitlement (Anastasio & Rose, 2014; Brouer et al., 2011; Campbell et al., 2004; Yam et al., 2017). Finally, psychologically entitled managers have self-centered understanding of the world, and they are likely to find external targets for blame when their own groups suffer from resource scarcity. For example, entitled individuals feel less obliged to reciprocate with others’ favor and 47 tend to insist that they deserve a larger “piece of the pie” regardless of their actual performance, effort, and contribution to the organization (Naumann, Minsky, & Sturman, 2002; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2017). Due to their narrow, self-centered view of the environment, when resource scarcity is high, they tend to focus on what they do not have or receive without considering others’ viewpoints or a broader environment (Harvey & Martinko, 2009). For example, resource scarcity in their group can occur because of their waste of resource or uncontrollable shifts in the environment such as economic downturn and changes in industry trend. However, entitled managers may not take these factors into account due to their obsession to personal gains. Moreover, entitled individuals, due to their ego-centric tendency, often attribute causality of negative events to external factors (e.g., other people, environments, and God; Anastasio & Rose, 2014; Exline et al., 2004; Grubbs, Exline, & Campbell, 2013; Harvey & Martinko, 2009) rather than themselves. Thus, they could easily attribute the difficult situation of resource scarcity to unfair treatment by upper-level management who is considered responsible for providing resources (Harvey & Martinko, 2009). Indeed, Harvey and Martinko (2009) found that psychological entitlement was positively related to self-serving attribution styles and greater conflict with superiors. When resource scarcity is high, I therefore expect that entitled managers will be more likely to target upper-level management in an attempt to acquire more resources. It is interesting to consider the possibility that resource scarcity in other groups may moderate the relation of psychological entitlement and external resource acquisition. However, the literature suggests that entitled individuals tend to care less about others’ issues or their surroundings unless they are directly related to their own self-interest (Anastasio & Rose, 2014). For example, scholars found that psychological entitlement is negatively related to or unrelated to other-focused tendencies such as agreeableness, loyalty, and suggestions for the organization, 48 and organizational commitment (e.g., Anastasio & Rose, 2014; Campbell et al., 2010; Raskin & Terry, 1988). In many organizations, other groups’ issues are not always directly affecting the focal group’s survival and prosperity. In contrast, resource constraints in their own group is almost always critical for the manager’s own success. Thus, although resource scarcity in other groups may be somewhat relevant to the manager, it is not as critical as resource scarcity in the manager's own group. In summary, due to their inflated sense of deservingness, competitive mindset, and self- centered orientation, psychologically entitled managers are more likely to acquire more resources from upper-level management when resource scarcity in their group is high (see Figure 5). It is important to note that entitled managers will always strive to procure more resources, whether they are needed or not, as shown in the existing literature (Campbell et al., 2004; Moeller et al., 2009; Zitek et al., 2010). Thus, I expect a weaker positive relationship when resource scarcity in their own group is low. Thus, I predict: Hypothesis 4: The relation of psychological entitlement with external resource acquisition is moderated by resource scarcity in my group, such that psychological entitlement will be more positively related to external resource acquisition when resource scarcity in my group is higher (vs. lower). 49 Figure 5 – Proposed Interaction for External Resource Acquisition n o i t i s i u q c A e c r u o s e R l a n r e t x E 5 4 3 2 Low Resource Scarcity in My Group High Resource Scarcity in My Group Low Psychological High Psychological Entitlement Entitlement GROUP PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES Introduction to Group Performance. As the outcome of the interaction effects of external resource exchanges and outcome interdependence, I examine group performance for its evolutionary utility. Specifically, superior group performance enables groups to survive and prosper (Lee et al., 2018; Mullen & Copper, 1994; Sober & Wilson, 1998; Wilson, Van Vugt, & O’Gorman, 2008; Wilson & Wilson, 2008). In understanding the downstream performance outcome, it is important to note that managers’ sharing and acquisition of resources evolved for dealing with specific adaptive problems and thus each behavioral tactic has its own benefit and downside depending on the context (Buss, 2015). For example, external resource sharing may be adaptive for group functioning in the context where success is dependent on collaboration 50 between groups. However, when mutual interdependence is low, manager’s spending of resources on other groups may not be reciprocated, thereby less likely to contribute to the focal group’s survival and prosperity. Similarly, although manager’s acquisition of resources may have the potential to be utilized for group functioning, it is also possible that managers may spend these resources more on their personal benefit, not their group. Thus, managers should be able to see how group success is associated with their own success for them to invest acquired resources in their groups and subsequently enhance group performance. External Resource Sharing: Outcome Interdependence and Group Performance. I suggest that the situation where outcomes are dependent on intergroup collaboration enables managers’ sharing of resources with other groups to benefit their own group performance. External resource sharing is not always beneficial: it can even undermine group performance because sharing of resources may not be reciprocated and can be wasted. As noted in the classical free-riding problem in human evolutionary history, receiving resources without paying the price has a greater practical benefit for one’s own survival and prosperity (Tomasello et al., 2012). When intergroup outcome interdependence (i.e., the outcome interdependence between groups) is high, owing to the commonality of goals among groups, other groups are likely to return the favor by helping the focal group when the group needs assistance and resources (De Dreu, 2007). Moreover, intergroup outcome interdependence enables the members from different groups to develop a sense of belongingness and a shared identity at a higher level beyond their own groups because they interact and work together for the success of the collective (Tomasello et al., 2012). Due to a sense of belongingness and a shared identity as a member of the bigger group, different groups willingly share resources with one another (Clutton-Brock, 2002). 51 Finally, the interdependent situation provides a context where managers who willingly share resources with other groups gain higher reputation and status. This is because organizational members consider resource sharing desirable and valuable for the collective survival (Clutton- Brock, 2002; Tomasello et al., 2012). By sharing resources with others, therefore, managers in the context of high outcome interdependence can expect higher reputation and status. Managers with greater reputation and status are capable of successfully mobilizing support and resource when necessary (Earley, 1999; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007). Thus, when intergroup outcome interdependence is high, manager’s sharing of resources with others is likely to pay off and benefit the focal group’s performance (see Figure 6). In contrast, when intergroup outcome interdependence is low, manager’s sharing of resources with others may undermine the focal group’s performance because it takes away the resources that could be used to enhance the group performance. Indeed, research using resource allocation framework shows that spending resources for others potentially harms the focal group’s performance, especially when intergroup interdependence is low (Nielsen, Bachrach, Sundstrom, & Halfhill, 2012). Thus, I predict: Hypothesis 5: The relation of external resource sharing with group performance is moderated by intergroup outcome interdependence, such that external resource sharing will be more positively related to group performance when intergroup outcome interdependence is higher (vs. lower). 52 Figure 6 – Proposed Interaction for Group Performance Moderated by Intergroup Outcome Interdependence e c n a m r o f r e P p u o r G 5 4 3 2 Low Intergroup Outcome Interdependence High Intergroup Outcome Interdependence Low External Resource High External Resource Sharing Sharing External Resource Acquisition: Outcome Interdependence and Group Performance. I suggest that manager’s acquisition of resources will lead to superior group performance when leaders and members are interdependent on their outcomes (i.e., high intragroup outcome interdependence). One of the central challenges in social life is the so-called Prisoner’s Dilemma in which organizational members face a choice between their own well-being and that of the group (Tomasello et al., 2012). Groups managers tend to have authority and responsibility in resource allocations at work and they often experience a conflict between self-interest and collective interest (Kanter, 1993; Mills & Ungson, 2003). For example, they do not always use acquired resources for group functioning. Managers may exploit financial resources for personal expenditure and use newly added personnel to make their own jobs easier, but not the jobs of others. They may also not necessarily share technology and knowledge with others in order to 53 maintain their superiority and take control of their groups (Maner & Case, 2016; Mead & Maner, 2012; Stewart et al., 2017). However, when intragroup outcome interdependence is high, managers are likely to invest acquired resources in group success because doing so benefits themselves (Van Der Vegt, Emans, & Van De Vliert, 1998; Wageman & Baker, 1997). Outcome interdependence creates a win-win situation for leaders and members, not a zero-sum game in which if one party wins, the other party loses, and thus managers willingly utilize acquired resources for the group. Moreover, intragroup outcome interdependence unites the leader and members together. This is because they share a common goal and they frequently interact with one another (De Dreu, 2007). Thus, I predict that when intragroup outcome interdependence is high, group managers are more likely to invest acquired resources in the group, which facilitates a successful transformation of manager’s acquisition of resources into increased group performance (see Figure 7). In contrast, when intragroup outcome interdependence is low, groups are less likely to utilize acquired resources for the group. Thus, acquired resources are less likely to contribute to group performance (i.e., a weaker positive or null relation). Hypothesis 6: The relation of external resource acquisition with group performance is moderated by outcome interdependence between leaders and the group, such that external resource acquisition will be more positively related to group performance when the intragroup outcome interdependence is higher (vs. lower). 54 Figure 7 – Proposed Interaction for Group Performance Moderated by Intragroup Outcome Interdependence e c n a m r o f r e P p u o r G 5 4 3 2 Low Leader-Group Outcome Interdependence High Leader-Group Outcome Interdependence Low External Resource High External Resource Acquisition Acquisition THE INTEGRATIVE MODEL Taking the full model into consideration and in accordance with my use of the lens of evolutionary psychology to understand the downstream consequences of structural empowerment, I propose that the first-stage moderators – prestige and dominance orientations – and the second-stage moderators – resource scarcity in other groups and in my group – and the third-stage moderators – intergroup outcome interdependence and intragroup outcome interdependence – jointly moderate the indirect effect of structural empowerment on group performance via the two psychological mechanisms (i.e., psychological empowerment and psychological empowerment) and the two resource exchanges (i.e., external resource sharing and external resource acquisition). Congruent with my theorizing, the indirect relation of structural empowerment with group performance via psychological empowerment and external resource 55 sharing is expected to be positive and the strongest when prestige orientation, resource scarcity in other groups, and intergroup outcome interdependence are all high compared to when any one or two of these moderators are low. The indirect relation of structural empowerment with group performance via psychological entitlement and external resource acquisition is expected to be positive and the strongest when dominance orientation, resource scarcity in the leader’s own groups, and intragroup outcome interdependence are all high compared to when any one or two of these moderators are low. In effect, I advance the following moderated mediation hypotheses. Hypothesis 7: Prestige orientation, resource scarcity in other groups, and between-group outcome interdependence will moderate the indirect relation of structural empowerment with group performance via psychological empowerment and external resource sharing, such that this indirect relation will be positive and strongest when prestige orientation, resource scarcity in other groups, and intergroup outcome interdependence are all high (vs. any other combination). Hypothesis 8: Dominance orientation, resource scarcity in the leader’s own group, and intragroup outcome interdependence will moderate the indirect relation of structural empowerment with group performance via psychological entitlement and external resource acquisition, such that this indirect relation will be positive and strongest when dominance orientation, resource scarcity in the leader’s own group, and intragroup outcome interdependence are all high (vs. any other combination). 56 OVERVIEW OF STUDIES I conducted two studies to test my hypotheses. In Study 1, I employed an experimental design that provides a robust test of the internal validity of the proposed model. Moreover, Study 1 takes a more in-depth look at the psychological experiences of managers in response to structural empowerment, thereby providing greater theoretical precision. In Study 2, I conducted a non-experimental field study to provide external validity evidence of my theoretical model in an organizational setting. In particular, I collected multi-source, multi-wave survey data in order to minimize concerns about common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). My multimethod research (combining an online experiment with a field-based survey) addresses concerns surrounding replication of results in the organizational and psychological sciences (Koole & Lakens, 2012). SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE STUDY 1 In Study 1, I examined the theorized mechanisms about why structural empowerment leads to two different cognitive experiences –– psychological empowerment and psychological entitlement –– depending on prestige and dominance orientations. Specifically, I argued that among high prestige-oriented managers, structural empowerment will be attributed to the organization’s trust in them as a leader and these managers will envision their prosocial influence on others. In contrast, among high dominance-oriented managers, structural empowerment will be attributed to the managers’ superiority and these managers will envision their self-interest associated with structural empowerment. If my theorizing is accurate, I expect that when structural empowerment is present, managers with higher (vs. lower) prestige orientation will report greater (1) perception of being trusted and (2) prosocial motivation. Moreover, I expect 57 that when structural empowerment is present, managers with higher (vs. lower) dominance orientation will report greater (1) perceptions of superiority and (2) proself motivation. I invited 599 working adults from the United States through Prolific (an online research platform for social and behavioral sciences) to participate in this study in exchange for $2 USD.5 Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following 6 conditions: 2 (structural empowerment and no structural empowerment) × 3 (prestige orientation, dominance orientation, and no social hierarchy orientation).6 The study ostensibly involved a group task and participants entered their initials. Following a brief delay, participants saw the initials and greetings from five potential (fictitious) partners they would work with later. They completed the questionnaire about their prestige and dominance orientations as well as twenty business quiz questions. Later, participants were assigned to one of the prestige, dominance, and control conditions (see Appendix A for manipulation conditions). Next, participants learned that they would work with two other members in the fictitious company called Spartan Financial (see Appendix B for the company description). In the structural empowerment condition, participants were allowed to make decisions regarding three important issues: selection of group members, group tasks, and rewards. As a manipulation of selection of group members, participants were allowed to decide who they would work with, after seeing brief bios outlining the expertises of potential (fictitious) group members. Participants were told that these are actual writings from (fictitious) members (see 5 The number of sample size is based on the power analysis using G* Power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) and prior study employing a similar design. The power analysis approach reveals that a minimum of 158 participants is necessary (6 groups with anticipated effect size f =.25). Lee et al. (2018) used approximately 450 participants for the 2 × 3 design of online manipulation (75 participants per cell). 6 For a prior example of the manipulation of prestige and dominance orientations by using status and power manipulations, respectively, see Case et al. (2018). For the similarity and difference among prestige orientation, dominance orientation, status, and power, see Cheng et al. (2013). 58 Appendix A for their options for selection).7 Then participants were presented with four different issues of the company and they were told that they are empowered to make a decision about which issue they want to work on (see Appendix A for their options of group tasks). After they chose one of the issues, they were further instructed to write about how they want to plan and strategize their goals, work procedures, and task allocation. Finally, participants were informed that if their group report is selected by the company, their group will receive a $10 bonus and they will be able to decide how to allocate the reward (see Appendix A for a specific instruction). In contrast, participants in the no structural empowerment condition were not allowed to make decisions regarding the three issues above (i.e., selection of group members, group tasks, and rewards). Participants were informed that a staff member from Spartan Financial will decide which member they would work with, which task they are supposed to work on, and how reward is allocated among members (see Appendix A for the instructions). Next, participants completed manipulation check items and reported their perception of being trusted, prosocial motivation, sense of superiority, proself motivation, psychological empowerment, and psychological entitlement in reference to their experiences in the description. Finally, I utilized behavioral measures of external resource sharing and acquisition (see Appendix C for the items) by asking participants to make decisions regarding resource allocation between their group and another group (i.e., external resource sharing) as well as financial support from upper-level management (i.e., external resource acquisition). After data collection was complete, I removed those who failed to satisfy the attention- check guidelines (64 individuals; see also Meade & Craig, 2012, and Oppenheimer, Meyvis, & 7 While they believe that others are typing their experiences or expertise, they were asked to complete manipulation check items of prestige and dominance orientations (see Appendix C for the items). The same procedure was applied to the no structural empowerment condition. 59 Davidenko, 2009). Moreover, I removed those who spent less than 15 minutes (i.e., 26 participants; bottom 5% of the survey completion duration). For example, Meade and Craig (2012, p. 4) noted that “very fast responses are assumed to be careless in nature.” My final sample consisted of 509 working adults. The demographics of this sample were as follows: 55.8% were male; 84.1% were White/Caucasian, 7.1% were Black/African American, 6.5% were Asian, and 4.9% were Hispanic/Latino; and 38.7% were less than 30 years old, 38.9% were between 31 and 40 years old, 13.9% were between 41 and 50 years old, and the remainder were 51 years or older. Participants worked in their current company for 5.78 years (SD = 5.68) and came from a variety of industries including information technology (13.2%), health care (8.8%), education (7.9%), manufacturing (7.5%), retail (6.5%), accountancy, banking, and finance (4.7%), construction (3.9%), sales (3.5%), engineering (3.5%), and hospitality (3.3%). MEASURES Manipulation check. Following each manipulation condition, managers responded to measures on structural empowerment, prestige orientation, and dominance orientation. I measured structural empowerment (see Appendix C) using six items ((cid:1) = .93) adapted from Lee and Kim (2020). A five-point response scale was used for these questions (from 1 = “Not at all” to 5 = “A great deal”). I measured prestige ((cid:1) = .89) and dominance orientations ((cid:1) =.89) using four items each (see Appendix C) from Cassidy and Lynn (1989). Managers responded to the items using a 5-point response scale (from 1 = “Not at all” to 5 = “A great deal”). Perception of being trusted. I adapted three items ((cid:1) = .94; see Appendix C) from Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, and Martin (1997) by modifying the wordings to capture their perception of being trusted by the organization rather than their perceptions of whether they trust the organization. Managers responded to the items in reference to their experiences in 60 participating in this study using a 5-point response scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Prosocial motivation. I utilized the three-item scale ((cid:1) = .94) of prosocial motivation (see Appendix C) from Grant (2008). Managers responded to the items in reference to their experiences in participating in this study using a 5-point response scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Sense of superiority. I developed three items ((cid:1) = .92; see Appendix C) based upon Kernis, Greenier, Herlocker, Whisenhunt, and Abend (1997; e.g., the original item, “I would feel superior to others.”). Managers responded to the items in reference to their experiences in participating in this study using a 5-point response scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Proself motivation. I adapted the three-item scale ((cid:1) = .95) of proself motivation (see Appendix C) from Beersma and De Dreu (2002). Managers responded to the items in reference to their experiences in participating in this study using a 5-point response scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Psychological empowerment. I utilized the twelve-item scale ((cid:1) = .92) of psychological empowerment (see Appendix C) from Spreitzer (1995). Managers responded to the items in reference to their experiences in participating in this study using a 5-point scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Psychological entitlement. I assessed psychological entitlement with Campbell et al.’s (2004) nine-item scale ((cid:1) = .94; see Appendix C). Managers responded to the items in reference to their experiences in participating in this study using a 5-point scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). 61 External resource exchanges. I created two measures (see Hays & Blader, 2017, for the use of a similar approach) that provided participants with an opportunity to share resources with others (i.e., external resource sharing; 0 = “No, I don't want to share one of my group members” and 1 = “Yes, I would like to share one of my group members”) as well as an opportunity to ask for financial support from upper-level management (i.e., external resource acquisition; 0 = “No, I don't want to ask for a higher bonus” and 1 = “Yes, I would like to increase the bonus”; see Appendix C for detail). STUDY 1 RESULTS Before I conduct a 2 (structural empowerment and no structural empowerment) × 3 (prestige orientation, dominance orientation, and no social hierarchy orientation) ANOVA to test the statistical significance of the hypothesized relations, I evaluated the manipulations. As expected, I found a significant effect of the structural empowerment manipulation, F(1, 507) = 1017.44, p < 0.001, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.67. Participants in the structural empowerment condition (M = 4.40, SD = .66) reported higher levels of structural empowerment than participants in the no-structural empowerment condition (M = 1.99, SD = 1.03). However, non-significant effects of the social hierarchy manipulations on prestige orientation (F (2, 505) = .39, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.00) and dominance orientation (F (2, 496) = .60, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.00) were observed.8 Specifically, participants did not significantly differ in their levels of prestige orientation (for prestige orientation condition, M = 3.14, SD = 1.07; for dominance orientation condition, M = 3.23, SD = 1.10; for control condition, M = 3.15, SD = 1.05) and dominance orientation (for prestige orientation condition, M = 2.39, SD = 1.01; for dominance orientation condition, M = 2.49, SD = 1.07; for control condition, M = 2.38, SD = 1.02) across the social hierarchy manipulations. 8 I found one missing value in prestige orientation and ten missing values in dominance orientation. 62 The manipulation of structural empowerment did not affect prestige orientation (F(1, 506) = .07, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.00; for structural empowerment condition, M = 3.16, SD = 1.09; for no structural empowerment condition, M = 3.19, SD = 1.05) and dominance orientation (F(1, 497) = .16, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.00; for structural empowerment condition, M = 2.40, SD = 1.02; for no structural empowerment condition, M = 2.44, SD = 1.06). Also, the social hierarchy manipulations did not affect structural empowerment (F(2, 506) = .10, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.00; for prestige orientation condition, M = 3.33, SD = 1.46; for dominance orientation condition, M = 3.38, SD = 1.41; for control condition, M = 3.32, SD = 1.52). Finally, I tested whether the interactions of the structural empowerment and social hierarchy manipulations affect the manipulation check measures. The interaction of the structural empowerment and social hierarchy manipulations did not have significant effects on the manipulation check measures of structural empowerment (F(2, 503) = 2.44, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.01), prestige orientation (F(2, 502) = .10, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.01), and dominance orientation (F(2, 493) = 1.26, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.01). TESTS OF THE HYPOTHESES Despite the non-significant effects of the social hierarchy manipulations on prestige and dominance orientations, I proceeded to test my hypotheses. This is because a possibility exists that it might be an issue of manipulation check measures rather than the manipulations themselves. The results revealed that the interactions of the structural empowerment and social hierarchy manipulations did not have significant effects on the proposed outcomes including perception of being trusted (F(2, 503) = 1.01, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.00), prosocial motivation (F(2, 503) = .02, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.00), sense of superiority (F(2, 503) = 2.35, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.01), proself motivation (F(2, 503) = 1.26, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.01), psychological empowerment (F(2, 503) = .89, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.00), and psychological entitlement (F(2, 503) = 2.53, ns, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.01). The means and standard 63 deviations of each condition are reported in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Table 1 – Means and Standard Deviations of Perception of Being Trusted and Prosocial Motivation (Study 1) Prestige orientation Dominance orientation Control Perception of being trusted Prosocial motivation Structural empowerment No structural empowerment Structural empowerment No structural empowerment 4.14 (.77) N = 96 4.02 (.88) 3.72 (1.00) N = 71 3.87 (.95) 4.31 (.66) N = 96 4.19 (.73) N = 95 N = 75 N = 95 4.08 (.81) 3.71 (.98) 4.25 (.73) 4.00 (.90) N = 71 3.86 (1.09) N = 75 3.91 (.99) N = 95 N = 77 N = 95 N = 77 Note: For each condition, means, standard deviations in parentheses, and cell sizes are presented. Table 2 – Means and Standard Deviations of Sense of Superiority and Proself Motivation (Study 1) Prestige orientation Dominance orientation Control Sense of superiority Proself motivation Structural empowerment No structural empowerment Structural empowerment No structural empowerment 1.77 (.88) N = 96 2.08 (1.13) N = 95 1.99 (1.17) N = 95 1.97 (1.06) N = 71 2.04 (1.12) N = 75 1.69 (.96) N = 77 2.42 (1.14) N = 96 2.44 (1.27) N = 95 2.61 (1.23) N = 95 2.80 (1.36) N = 71 2.80 (1.34) N = 75 2.60 (1.31) N = 77 Note: For each condition, means, standard deviations in parentheses, and cell sizes are presented. 64 Table 3 – Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Empowerment and Psychological Entitlement (Study 1) Prestige orientation Dominance orientation Control Psychological empowerment Psychological entitlement Structural empowerment No structural empowerment Structural empowerment No structural empowerment 4.12 (.63) 3.24 (.96) 2.03 (.90) N = 96 N = 71 N = 96 4.09 (.69) 3.41 (.84) 2.10 (.94) N = 95 N = 75 N = 95 4.20 (.65) 3.33 (.84) 2.13 (.93) 2.15 (1.00) N = 71 2.09 (1.04) N = 75 1.81 (.76) N = 95 N = 77 N = 95 N = 77 Note: For each condition, means, standard deviations in parentheses, and cell sizes are presented. ALTERNATIVE THEORIZING AND SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS The tests of manipulation checks revealed that the manipulations of social hierarchy orientation did not have significant effects on the manipulation check measures such as prestige orientation and dominance orientation. Furthermore, the tests of the hypotheses revealed that the manipulations of prestige and dominance orientations did not interact with structural empowerment in predicting the proposed outcomes. The results question the validity of the manipulations of prestige and dominance orientations. A potential reason of such findings is because social hierarchy orientation is a stable characteristic of individuals rather than a malleable characteristic. Thus, any attempted manipulation of social hierarchy orientation would be too weak to have meaningful predictive power. Instead, it may be more appropriate to capture prestige and dominance orientations as stable individual characteristics without using manipulations. This is consistent with predominant approach to studying prestige and dominance 65 orientations as stable individual differences (e.g., Case et al., 2018). I measured prestige and dominance orientations to capture general characteristics of individuals prior to manipulation and decided to use them as an alternative way to test my hypotheses. I removed the experimental conditions for prestige and dominance orientations (337 participants) and just focused on the remaining 172 participants from the control condition. The demographics of the final sample were as follows: 55.2% were male; 85.5% were White/Caucasian, 9.9% were Black/African American, 4.7% were Asian, and 3.5% were Hispanic/Latino; and 38.4% were less than 30 years old, 39.5% were between 31 and 40 years old, 16.3% were between 41 and 50 years old, and the remainder were 51 years or older. They worked in their current company for 5.68 years (SD = 5.61) and came from a variety of industries including information technology (9.9%), education (11%), manufacturing (10.5%), health care (8.1%), retail (8.1%), accountancy, banking, and finance (5.2%), construction (4.7%), hospitality (6.4%), clerical or other office support (5.2%), and engineering (4.7%). I used measures of prestige and dominance orientations as individual difference variables that were measured at the beginning of the experimental session prior to the manipulations. Consistent with Lee, Hays, and Johnson (2020), I used five items each from Cassidy and Lynn (1989) to measure prestige ((cid:1) = .83) and dominance orientations ((cid:1) = .85). I recalculated reliabilties of the other measures of the study due to change in the sample size (n = 172). The coefficient alphas of perception of being trusted, prosocial motivation, sense of superiority, proself motivation, psychological empowerment, and psychological entitlement, were .95, .95, .94, .94, .93, and .93, respectively. I checked the manipulation effect. As expected, participants in the structural empowerment condition reported higher levels of structural empowerment than participants in 66 the no-structural empowerment condition, F (1, 170) = 463.90, p < 0.001, (cid:2)(cid:3) = 0.73. Participants in the structural empowerment condition (M = 4.49, SD = .55) reported higher levels of structural empowerment than participants in the no-structural empowerment condition (M = 1.88, SD = 1.01). I tested proximal outcomes as consequences of the interaction effects of structural empowerment and the two social hierarchy orientations as stable individual characteristics. Specifically, I tested the interaction effects of structural empowerment and prestige orientation on perception of being trusted and prosocial motivation as well as the interaction effects of structural empowerment and dominance orientation on sense of superiority and proself motivation. The result revealed that the interaction effects were non-significant (Table 4). Table 4 – Multiple Regression Predicting Perception of Being Trusted, Prosocial Motivation, Sense of Superiority, and Proself Motivation (Study 1) Dependent Variables Being Trusted Prosocial Motivation Sense of superiority Proself motivation Structural empowerment .36 (.13)* .33 (.13)* .30 (.16) .02 (.19) Prestige orientation .15 (.17) -.03 (.17) .17 (.20) -.04 (.24) Dominance orientation .27 (.15) .20 (.14) .24 (.17) .23 (.21) Structural empowerment × Prestige orientation Structural empowerment × Dominance orientation F-statistics R-squared -.13 (.23) .25 (.23) -.14 (.27) .23 (.33) -.08 (.21) -.16 (.21) .33 (.25) .32 (.30) 4.43* 2.99* 6.55* 4.39* .12 .08 .17 .12 Note: N = 172. Values in parentheses are standard errors; entries are unstandardized coefficients. * p < .05. 67 Next, I tested the interaction effect of structural empowerment and prestige orientation on psychological empowerment and the interaction effect of structural empowerment and dominance orientation on psychological entitlement. As shown in Table 5, the result revealed that only psychological entitlement as an outcome is significant whereas psychological empowerment as an outcome is non-significant. Specifically, the positive relation of structural empowerment with psychological entitlement was stronger for individuals who are lower (vs. higher) in prestige orientation (b = -.48, se = .20, p < .05; see Figure 8). Simple slope analysis revealed that structural empowerment had a positive relation with psychological entitlement when prestige orientation was low (b = .71, se = .19, p < .05) but this relation was non-significant when prestige orientation was high (b = -.04, se = .19, ns). Moreover, the positive relation of structural empowerment with psychological entitlement was stronger for individuals who are higher (vs. lower) in dominance orientation (b = .57, se = .18, p < .05; see Figure 9). Simple slope analysis revealed that structural empowerment had a positive relation with psychological entitlement when dominance orientation was high (b = .82, se = .19, p < .05) but this relation was non- significant when dominance orientation was low (b = -.15, se = .19, ns). I tested whether psychological entitlement predicts the two behavioral outcomes of external resource sharing and external resource acquisition. Results of logistic regression analyses showed that the relation of psychological entitlement with external resource sharing was negative and significant (b = -.77, se = .27, p < .05, eb = .46) whereas psychological entitlement was not significantly related to external resource acquisition (b = .39, se = .25, ns, eb = 1.48). Given the significant relation of psychological entitlement with external resource sharing, I proceeded to test the conditional indirect effect of structural empowerment on external resource sharing via psychological entitlement moderated by prestige and dominance orientations. The 68 results of the conditional indirect effect testing using the bootstrap procedure with 10,000 samples (Hayes, 2013) revealed that structural empowerment had a significant negative indirect effect on external resource sharing via psychological entitlement when prestige orientation was low (estimate = -.5701, 95% CI = -1.2453, -.1390), but the indirect effect was non-significant when prestige orientation was high (estimate = .0220, 95% CI = -.3046, .3731). I used Hayes’ (2015) index of moderated mediation, which quantifies the extent to which the indirect effect varies as a function of the moderator. The estimate of the index of moderated mediation was .3812 and the confidence interval of this index excluded zero (95% CI = .0549, .9476). Moreover, the results revealed that structural empowerment had a significant negative indirect effect on external resource sharing via psychological entitlement when dominance orientation was high (estimate = -.5841, 95% CI = -1.3033, -.1384), but the indirect effect non-significant when dominance orientation was low (estimate = .0990, 95% CI = -.1135, .4567). The estimate of the index of moderated mediation was -.4004 and the confidence interval of this index excluded zero (95% CI = -.9571, -.0836). Finally, I explored the possibility of the three-way interaction effects of structural empowerment, prestige orientation, and dominance orientation. The results revealed that the three-way interaction effects were non-significant for all outcomes including perception of being trusted (b = .14, se = .17, ns), prosocial motivation (b = -.16, se = .21, ns), sense of superiority (b = .33, se = .25, ns), proself motivation (b = .32, se = .30, ns), psychological empowerment (b = .25, se = .13, ns), and psychological entitlement (b = .16, se = .14, ns). 69 Table 5 – Multiple Regression Predicting Psychological Empowerment and Psychological Entitlement (Study 1) Psychological Empowerment Psychological Entitlement Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Structural empowerment .87 (.11)* .87 (.11)* .34 (.12)* .34 (.11)* Prestige orientation .11 (.10) .04 (.14) .06 (.10) .29 (.14)* Dominance orientation .21 (.09)* .31 (.12)* .46 (.09)* .19 (.13) Structural empowerment × Prestige orientation Structural empowerment × Dominance orientation F-statistics ∆ F-statistics R-squared ∆ R-squared .14 (.19) -.21 (.17) -.48 (.20)* .57 (.18)* 28.44* 17.31* 20.58* 14.92* 28.44* .34 .34 .74 .34 .00 20.58* 4.97* .27 .27 .31 .04 Note: N = 172. Values in parentheses are standard errors; entries are unstandardized coefficients. * p < .05. 70 Figure 8 – Interaction for Psychological Entitlement Moderated by Prestige Orientation (Study 1) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Low Prestige Orientation High Prestige Orientation Structural Empowerment Structural Empowerment (Absence) (Presence) Figure 9 – Interaction for Psychological Entitlement Moderated by Dominance Orientation (Study 1) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Structural Empowerment Structural Empowerment (Absence) (Presence) 71 Low Dominance Orientation High Dominance Orientation STUDY 1 DISCUSSION Study 1 provided initial evidence on how individual differences in prestige and dominance orientations shape managers’ differential reactions to structural empowerment. Specifically, I found that individuals differ in their experiences of psychological entitlement in response to structural empowerment, depending on their levels of prestige and dominance orientations. For those who are high in dominance orientation, structural empowerment increases their feelings of entitlement whereas those who are low in dominance orientation do not experience significant increase in their feelings of entitlement as a consequence of structural empowerment. Interestingly, prestige orientation emerged as a significant moderator for the relation between structural empowerment and psychological entitlement. For those who are low in prestige orientation, structural empowerment boosts their feelings of entitlement whereas those who are high in prestige orientation maintain their levels of psychological entitlement regardless of structural empowerment. Thus, it turns out that prestige orientation serves as a buffer that prevents elevation of psychological entitlement; rather than as a suppressor that reduces levels of psychological entitlement in response to structural empowerment. All told, the differential and opposite patterns of the effects of prestige and dominance orientations on managers’ responses to structural empowerment speak to the potential of the prestige-dominance distinction as a powerful force that guides how managers navigate structural empowerment. There are, however, unexpected findings that require further theoretical and empirical scrutiny. First, individual differences in prestige and dominance orientations did not have moderating effects on the relation between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment. However, a significant main effect of structural empowerment on psychological empowerment was observed. This finding is consistent with prior research that has utilized self- 72 determination theory to argue for its impact on psychological empowerment and the benefits of structural empowerment for employee productivity and well-being. However, Study 1 utilizes an experimental design that captures momentary experiences of structural empowerment during the exercise, and it is possible that in the short term, the benefit of structural empowerment is prevalent whereas in the long term, individuals may experience differential levels of psychological empowerment in response to structural empowerment. Thus, a field survey that captures these phenomena across a longer timeframe can address this issue. Second, the manipulations of prestige and dominance orientations did not have significant effects on individuals’ momentary perceptions of their prestige and dominance orientations (as captured by the manipulation checks). Moreover, the tests of the hypotheses using the experimental conditions of prestige and dominance orientations produced non- significant results, which indicate lack of predictive power. Interestingly, I used the momentary experiences of prestige and dominance orientations that were captured after the manipulation as alternative moderators in my supplemental analysis and the results were not significant. In contrast, the measures of general individual differences in prestige and dominance orientations that were captured before the manipulation did emerge as significant predictors of psychological entitlement. This is consistent with a predominant view in the literature that conceptualizes and operationalizes prestige and dominance orientations as stable individual differences. For example, Case et al. (2018, p. 3) noted that “much of the existing work delineating prestige versus dominance strategies has focused on the role of individual differences, that is, stable variability across people in their tendency to pursue high social rank via prestige versus dominance.” Taken together, the results indicate that the manipulation of prestige and dominance orientations may be too weak to override people’s chronic tendencies. Prestige and dominance 73 orientations may have greater predictive power when they are captured as stable individual differences rather than momentary experiences. Thus, in Study 2, I focus specifically on trait levels of these variables. Third, psychological entitlement was not significantly related to external resource acquisition. This is potentially due to small variance in the measure of external resource acquisition. Only 20.9% of participants noted that they would like to increase the bonus despite the financial difficulty that the fictitious company is facing. It is noteworthy that psychological entitlement had a negative relation with external resource sharing. That is, entitled individuals were less likely to share their resources with others. This is consistent with prior research that has shown that psychological entitlement is negative related to prosocial tendencies (Loi, Kuhn, Sahaym, Butterfield, & Tripp, 2020; Yam et al., 2017; Zitek et al., 2010). My supplemental analysis further showed that psychological empowerment was not significantly related to external resource sharing (b = -.37, se = .27, ns, eb = .69). This finding contrasts with prior research that has shown evidence regarding prosocial tendencies of psychologically empowered individuals (see Seibert et al., 2011, for a meta-analysis). One possibility is that my operationalization of external resource sharing involves sacrifice on the part of participants for others (i.e., sending one of my team members to other teams). That is, it is possible that psychologically empowered individuals are likely to share resources and help others to the extent that they do not have to make substantial sacrifices themselves. Finally, I theorized multiple micro-mediation mechanisms that explain the effects of structural empowerment on psychological empowerment and psychological entitlement, such as perception of being trusted, prosocial motivation, sense of superiority, and proself motivation, yet none of them were supported. In particular, given the significant interaction effects of 74 structural empowerment with prestige and dominance orientations on psychological entitlement, the results suggest that there may be alternative mechanisms which explain why prestige and dominance orientations moderate the relation of structural empowerment with psychological entitlement. One potential mechanism is perception of control over others. Psychological entitlement is, by definition, about perception of one’s special position in the group (i.e., one’s sense that he or she deserves special or unique treatment relative to others). Those who can make others do what they want are likely to feel that they have a special position in the group, increasing their feelings of entitlement. Thus, perceived control over others can be a key driver for psychological entitlement. Indeed, Rose and Anastasio (2014) demonstrated that entitlement is about the self in relation to others and entitled individuals tend to have a higher need for being recognized for their unique position in their social groups (i.e., sociotropy in their study). Proself motivation primarily involves concerns about the self regardless of others, not in relation to others. Although sense of superiority captures one’s relative sense of superiority over others, it may be too broad and does not directly speak to why an individual feels superior to others due to structural empowerment. Perception of control over others, however, directly speaks to the basis of one’s special position to others due to structural empowerment. Also, my measure of sense of superiority is self-developed, thus its construct validity has not been definitively established. For these reasons, in Study 2, I conducted a field survey to address limitations of Study 1 and provide evidence on an external validity of my findings. Specifically, going beyond people’s momentary experience of structural empowerment during the exercise, I captured structural empowerment within a longer timeframe using a survey measure. Moreover, I measured prestige and dominance orientations as stable individual differences without relying on 75 the manipulations. Finally, I tested behavioral and performance outcomes of managers’ psychological responses to structural empowerment. STUDY 2 SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE For this field study, I recruited data from 417 manager-supervisor dyads to ensure I had sufficient statistical power to test my hypotheses. The sample size is based on suggestions by Schmidt (1971) and Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). Schmidt (1971) suggested a minimum subject-to-predictor ratio of 15-to-1. The number of predictors in the current model is 20 (one independent variable, four mediators, six moderators, six interactions, and three controls). Therefore, the minimum number required for testing my model is 20 × 15 = 300. Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) recommended the minimum number of N > 50 + (8 × k) for tests of multiple regression (in my case, 50 + 8 × 20 = 210). I used three different means for recruiting participants. First, I recruited 251 dyads through snowball sampling whereby students from universities in the U.S. provided contact information of full-time managers and supervisors in exchange for course credit. Second, I recruited 123 dyads through an online data collection platform called ResearchMatch. Third, I recruited 43 dyads from full-time employees who were enrolled in an online master-level course on leadership in a university in the U.S. To minimize attrition and missing data, individuals were compensated for participating.9 After receiving contact information, I sent an email to potential 9 I employed three different types of incentives. The incentives differed across the three subsamples. First, participants from a Midwestern university had the potential to earn $100 cash prizes in a raffle drawing, where raffle tickets were earned based on their participation in the surveys. Second, participants from ResearchMatch and a Northeast university received either $5 or $10 per survey in return for their participation. Third, participants from the online master-level course received developmental feedback in return for their participation. There were no differences regardless of whether the incentive method was included as a control. 76 participants with the informed consent. I separated variables in time and collected data from two different sources (i.e., managers and their supervisors) in order to minimize common-method variance. Except for prestige and dominance orientations (which were measured as stable individual differences), all other variables were measured in reference to managers’ and supervisors’ experiences at work during the past three months. I used a three-month timeframe because asking about general experiences or using longer timeframes may decrease accuracy of the reports due to memory loss and time reference points may not be consistent for every participant. Providing specific time points (e.g., over the past three months) can capture participants’ recent and relatively vivid experiences at work and clarify which timepoint they should recall. Moreover, business activities and environments are more likely to shift in a longer timeframe. As a widely-used timeframe for business cycles (e.g., a quarterly report for financial statements issued by a company every three months), business activities and environments tend to be relatively consistent over three months. The field study spanned four weeks. In the first week, supervisors reported the extent to which there was structural empowerment for group managers. In the second week, group managers reported their levels of psychological empowerment and psychological entitlement, the resource scarcity in their group and in other groups, and their prestige and dominance orientations as stable individual differences. In the third week, the managers reported their external resource exchanges (i.e., resource acquisition and sharing) and outcome interdependence (i.e., intergroup outcome interdependence and intragroup outcome interdependence). In the final week, supervisors reported the work performance of managers’ groups. 77 After data collection was complete, I removed missing data (114 dyads in total). The final sample comprised 303 dyads. The demographic information were as follows for managers and supervisors, respectively: 31.4% and 18.4% were less than 30 years old, 23.1% and 20.7% were between 31-40, 16.5% and 22.4% were between 41-50, and the remainder were older than 51 years; 58.1% and 47.2% identified as female; 66.1% and 64% as Caucasian, 14.5% and 13.7% as Asian, 9% and 9% as African-American, and 5.4% and 6.6% as Hispanic. On average, managers and supervisors worked in their current organization for 8 years (SD = 7.8) and 11.9 years (SD = 9.5), respectively. MEASURES Structural empowerment. I measured structural empowerment (see Appendix D) by adapting the eight dimensions of structural empowerment from Lee and Kim (2020) by asking the supervisors of group managers to report the extent to which, over the past three months, group managers were authorized and responsible for decisions regarding task activities (e.g., workload, work methods, work pace, working hours, task allocation, and job rotation), training, and selection. I further added five more dimensions: rewards (or incentives), performance appraisals, use of technology (or equipment), information sharing, and strategy, goals, or mission in order to cover a broader spectrum of managerial issues (e.g., Lee, Pak, & Kim, 2019; Pak & Kim, 2018). Supervisors responded to these items using a 5-point response scale (from 1 = “Not at all” to 5 = “A great deal”). The coefficient alpha (α) was .88. Prestige and dominance orientations. I utilized the seven-item scale of prestige orientation ((cid:1) = .82) and the seven-item scale of dominance orientation ((cid:1) = .82) from Cassidy and Lynn (1989; see Appendix D). Managers responded to the items using a 5-point response scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). 78 Psychological empowerment. I utilized the twelve-item scale of psychological empowerment ((cid:1) = .88; see Appendix D) from Spreitzer (1995). Group managers responded to the items in reference to their experiences over the past three months using a 5-point scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Psychological entitlement. I assessed psychological entitlement with Campbell et al.’s (2004) nine-item scale ((cid:1) = .93; see Appendix D). Group managers responded to the items in reference to their experiences over the past three months using a 5-point scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Resource scarcity. I adapted the three-item scale of resource scarcity from Faraj and Yan (2009) and created three items each for resource scarcity in other groups ((cid:1) = .87) and resource scarcity in my group ((cid:1) = .84; see Appendix D). Group managers responded to the items in reference to their experiences over the past three months using a 5-point scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Managers’ resource exchanges. I measured manager’s sharing of resources with other groups (i.e., external resource sharing) using four items ((cid:1) = .85) adapted from Tsai and Ghoshal (1998). I measured manager’s acquisition of resources from upper-level management (i.e., external resource acquisition) using four items ((cid:1) = .92; see Appendix D) adapted from Marrone, Tesluk, and Carson (2007). Group managers responded to the items in reference to their behaviors over the past three months using a 5-point scale (from 1 = “Not at all” to 5 = “A great deal”). Outcome Interdependence. I measured intergroup outcome interdependence ((cid:1) = .96) and intragroup outcome interdependence ((cid:1) = .91) using eight items each (see Appendix D) adapted from Janssen, Van De Vliert, and Veenstra (1999). Group managers responded to the 79 items in response to their experiences over the past three months using a 5-point scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Group performance. I measured group performance using the five-dimension measure ((cid:1) = .90; see Appendix D) developed by Van Der Vegt and Bunderson (2005). The five dimensions are efficiency, quality, overall achievement, productivity, and mission fulfillment. Supervisors rated each dimension based upon their observation of the manager’s group’s performance over the past three months using a five-point scale (from 1 = “Far below average” to 5 = “Far above average”). Control variables. In order to rule out alternative explanations for hypothesized relations, I controlled for three theoretically relevant variables. First, manager education was controlled due to its possible impact on psychological empowerment. Spreitzer (1996) found that among the three demographic variables (gender, age, and education), only education had a significant relation with psychological empowerment. Second, I controlled for managers’ formal rank to examine unique effects of psychological characteristics of prestige and dominance orientation above and beyond the structural effect of social hierarchy (Hays & Blader, 2017; Maner & Case, 2016; Spreitzer, 1996). To capture formal rank within the organization, managers were shown a drawing of a ladder with 10 numbered rungs (from 1 = “10th and bottom rung” to 10 = “1st and top rung”) and asked to indicate approximately where in their organization’s hierarchy they fell (adapted from Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, and Ickovics, 2000). Finally, I included perceived organizational support as a control because, according to a social exchange perspective of empowerment, benevolent exchanges between organizations and managers can influence managers’ psychological states of empowerment and exchange behaviors (Liden et al., 2000; Seibert et al., 2011). I used the six-item scale of perceived organizational support ((cid:1) = .91; 80 see Appendix D) from Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and Rhoades (2001). Managers responded to these items using a 5-point scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). STUDY 2 RESULTS To begin, I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the fit of the measurement model. The 13-factor measurement model included the focal predictor (structural empowerment), control (perceived organizational support), moderators (prestige and dominance orientations, resource scarcity in other groups and in my groups, intergroup outcome interdependence, and intragroup outcome interdependence), mediators (psychological empowerment, psychological entitlement, external resource sharing, and external resource acquisition), and dependent variable (group performance). The results revealed that the expected 13-factor measurement model had acceptable fit: χ2(3077) = 4991.42, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .05, and SRMR = .07.10 The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all study variables are presented in Table 6. I proceeded to examine our hypothesized relationships. I used path analysis in Mplus 8.2.11 To test Hypotheses 1-6, I first grand-mean-centered the variables in the predictors and 10 Due to a large number of items in psychological empowerment, we created four item parcels (three items each) based upon its subdimensions (i.e., competence, meaning, impact, and self-determination). Moreover, consistent with prior research, I used modification indices (MI) to detect the potential presence of common error variance in my data (Chong, Kim, Lee, Johnson, & Lin, 2020; Liao, Lee, Johnson, & Lin, 2020; Miller, Jenkins, Kaplan, & Salonen, 1995). Without any changes made to the factor structure, I allowed three pairs of the intergroup outcome interdependence items, one pair of the intragroup outcome interdependence items, and twelve pairs of the perceived organizational support items to covary within each factor because MI values were greater than 70. 11 In order to deal with missing data, I conducted analyses using full information maximum likelihood (FIML). FIML tends to provide unbiased estimates of parameters in the presence of missing data. FIML has been demonstrated as superior methods in handling missing data to other methods, such as listwise deletion or pairwise deletion (Enders, 2010; Enders & Bandaolos, 2001; Newman, 2003). For example, listwise deletion tends to lead to biased estimates for originally sampled population and the mean(s) and 81 then created the product terms (Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Figure 10 and Table 7, I found a non-significant interaction between structural empowerment and prestige orientation on psychological empowerment (b = -.04, se = .09, ns) and a non-significant interaction between structural empowerment and dominance orientation on psychological entitlement (b = .02, se = .13, ns). Further, the result revealed a non-significant interaction between psychological empowerment and resource scarcity in other groups on external resource sharing (b = -.13, se = .13, ns) and a non-significant interaction between psychological entitlement and resource scarcity in my group on external resouce acquisition (b = -.14, se = .09, ns). Finally, I found a non-significant interaction between external resource sharing and intergroup outcome interdependence on group performance (b =.09, se = .07, ns) and a non-significant interaction between external resource acquisition and intragroup outcome interdependence on group performance (b =.13, se = .09, ns). The overall fit of the path model was also poor: χ2 (107) = 357.96, CFI = .24, RMSEA = .09, and SRMR = .09. Thus, Hypotheses 1 through 6 were not supported. covariance matrix/structure is distorted with the use of listwise deletion unless data are missing completely at random. I ran analysis using listwise deletion (N = 272) and the result was consistent. 82 Figure 10 – Results of the Path Analysis (Study 2) Note: N = 303; * p <.05. Values in parentheses are standard errors; entries are unstandardized coefficients. 83 Table 6 – Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 2) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Variables 1 Education 2 Formal rank Mean S.D. 3.33 1.24 1 5.13 6.09 -.09 3 Perceived organizational support 3.71 .87 .05 -.23 4 Structural empowerment 3.64 .72 -.01 -.04 .12 5 Psychological empowerment 3.93 .60 -.01 -.04 .39 .17 6 Psychological entitlement 7 External resource sharing 2.45 3.13 .88 .06 .17 -.09 .06 .09 .91 -.08 -.08 .07 .19 .21 .13 8 External resource acquisition 2.88 .98 -.10 -.10 .02 .14 .21 .27 .46 9 Group performance 10 Prestige orientation 11 Dominance orientation 4.02 3.70 3.71 .62 .60 .70 -.08 .05 .08 .18 .19 -.06 .23 .06 .09 .09 .17 .05 .27 .36 .09 .26 -.02 .04 .09 .18 .14 .30 .32 .09 .17 .06 .63 12 13 14 15 Resource scarcity in other groups Resource scarcity in my group Intergroup outcome interdependence Intragroup outcome interdependence 3.19 .92 .03 .10 -.11 .14 .06 .27 .09 .18 -.09 .25 .16 3.32 .95 .12 .05 -.13 -.03 .02 .24 .09 .17 -.13 .17 .11 .60 3.57 .80 -.05 -.16 .18 .07 .20 .00 .27 .19 .03 .12 .11 .04 .12 3.84 .64 -.07 -.26 .24 .11 .27 .13 .19 .21 .01 .28 .25 -.04 .10 .45 Note: N = 303. All correlations above |0.11| are significant at p < 0.05, two-tailed. 84 Table 7 –––– Results of Path Analysis (Study 2) Dependent Variables Variable Psychological Empowerment Psychological Entitlement External Resource Sharing External Resource Acquisition Group Performance Education Formal rank Perceived organizational support Structural empowerment -.02 (.03) .04 (.04) -.07 (.04) -.11 (.04)* -.04 (.03) .00 (.01) .02 (.01)* -.02 (.01) -.03 (.01)* .01 (.01) .23 (.04)* -.14 (.06)* -.03 (.07) -.07 (.07) .01 (.05) .09 (.04) .06 (.07) .19 (.07)* .13 (.08) .12 (.06) Prestige orientation .10 (.06) .38 (.09)* Dominance orientation Psychological empowerment Psychological entitlement Resource scarcity in others’ group Resource scarcity in my group External resource sharing External resource acquisition Intergroup outcome interdependence Intragroup outcome interdependence Interactions Structural empowerment × Prestige orientation Structural empowerment × Dominance orientation .17 (.07)* .23 (.10)* -.04 (.09) .18 (.13) .05 (.09) .02 (.13) 85 .27 (.09)* .29 (.09)* .18 (.07)* .10 (.06) .28 (.06)* -.09 (.05) -.03 (.07) .02 (.08) .12 (.07) .11 (.07) .18 (.05)* -.05 (.05) -.03 (.06) -.02 (.08) Table 7 (cont’d) Psychological empowerment × Resource scarcity in others’ group Psychological empowerment × Resource scarcity in my group Psychological entitlement × Resource scarcity in others’ group Psychological entitlement × Resource scarcity in my group External resource sharing × Intergroup outcome interdependence External resource sharing × Intragroup outcome interdependence External resource acquisition × Intergroup outcome interdependence -.13 (.13) -.05 (.13) .04 (.12) .09 (.12) .03 (.08) .12 (.09) .03 (.09) -.14 (.09) .09 (.07) -.09 (.09) -.06 (.07) External resource acquisition × Intragroup outcome interdependence Note: N = 303. Values in parentheses are standard errors; entries are unstandardized coefficients. * p < .05. .13 (.09) ALTERNATIVE THEORIZING AND SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS I ran supplemental anlayses in order to test alternative possiblities of the theorized model. First, I excluded individuals who are likely to provide unreliable responses such as participants who experienced any major change in organizational structure during the survey 86 period, managers who rarely interacted with their subordinates, and supervisors who reported that they do not have a chance to observe managers’ behaviors. The final sample comprised of 249 managers and their supervisors. Demographics of the managers and supervisors, respectively, were as follows: 32.9% and 18.9% were less than 30 years old, 24.9% and 21.8% were between 31-40, 17.3% and 20.1% were between 41-50, and the remainder were older than 51 years; 56.2% and 47.5% identified as female; 50.2% and 43.0% identified as Caucasian, 9.6% and 9.2% as Asian, 6.4% and 5.6% as African American, and 3.6% and 4.0% as Hispanic. On average, the managers and supervisors worked in their current organization for 8.2 years (SD = 7.8) and 11.7 years (SD = 9.2), respectively.12 Second, I employed the focal manager’s own measurement of structural empowerment. This is because other reports of the focal person’s structural empowerment (supervisor ratings in my study) can be distal and inaccurate.13 Indeed, Spreitzer (1996, p. 486) highlighed the necessity of using the focal person’s perceptual measures of structural empowerment: “Resources may be decentralized in objective reality, but if employees are not informed that those resources are available for their use (a perceptual reality), then access to resources will have little influence on feelings of empowerment. Consequently, it is the individuals’ perceptions of their working environments that shape empowerment rather than some objective reality.” Thus, Spreitzer focused on the focal person’s perceptions of structural empowerment rather than trying to capture a objective realibity using other reports or secondary data. Following Spreitzer’s suggestion, I employed the manager’s own report of structural empowerment. 12 Again, given the use of three different incentives for participants (raffle, pay-for-performance, and developmental feedback), I included the incentive method as a control. However, the result was consistent with or without it as a control. 13 The correlation between supervisor’s rating of structural empowerment and manager’s rating of structural empowerment was .38 (p < .05). 87 Third, I used contextualized measures in this study for capturing prestige orientation, dominance orientation, and structural empowerment by choosing items that are more relevant to the study context, thereby improving theoretical precision and face validity. For prestige and dominance orientations, I followed Lee et al. (2020) and chose five items each for these two measures. I removed the two items of prestige orientation: “I find satisfaction in having influence over others because of my position in the community” and “I like being the centre of attention.” According to the literature on prestige and dominance (Cheng et al., 2013), indivduals can exercise influence in two different ways (i.e., prestige is seeking respect and admiration and dominance is invoking fear). However, the term “influence” in the former item does not distinguish these two unique strategies for social influence. Also the latter item overlaps with the narcissism scale (i.e,. “I like to be the center of attention”; Raskin & Terry, 1988). I also removed the two items of dominance orienation: “If given the chance, I would make a good leader of people” and “I think I am usually a leader in my group.” This is because participants are already leaders in their group and they can differ in their orientations for prestige and dominance not by having desire to be a leader position but by exercising their leadership in different ways. The coefficient alphas for prestige and dominance orientations are .80 and .79, respectively. As for structural empowerment, the original measure is a combination of a general measure of structural empowerment and a specific measure that was developed in Korean manufacturying industry (see Lee & Kim, 2020). Thus, I followed the ability-motivation- opportunity (AMO) framework of previous research on organizational structure (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Gardner, Wright, & Moynihan, 2011; Lee et al., 2019; Pak & Kim, 2019; Liao, Toya, Lepak, & Hong, 2009) and chose seven items that are respresentive of empowering organizational structure and are found to have substantial levels of managerial 88 discretion. The ability dimension of structural empowerment includes items pertaining to selection and training. The motivation dimension of structural empowerment includes items pertaining to performance appraisals and rewards. The opportunity dimension of structural empowerment includes items pertaining to participation in strategic decision making, use of technology, and working hours.14 I conducted principal axis factor analysis of the items and the result extracted one dominant factor (first eigenvalue = 2.67; other factors were less than the conventional cutoff of eigenvalue 1), thereby justifying the use of the index scale (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). This is also consistent with prior work on organizational structures and HR systems that utilized the AMO framework and created an index scale (Huselid, 1995; Lee et al., 2019; Sun, Aryee, & Law, 2007). The coefficient alpha of this structural empowerment index is .81. Fourth, the poor fit of the path model indicates that the path structure needs to be revised. In particular, the low CFI value (.24) indicates a large discrepancy between the data and the hypothesized model. Thus, I made the following changes to the model. To begin, according to the literature on structural empowermemt, two popular theoretical lenses that have been utilized are social exchange theory and self deterimination theory. I utilized psychological empowerment as a mechanism that is drawn from self determination theory. However, I only used perceived organizational support as a control, rather than a mediating mechanism as suggested by social exchange theory. Thus, I added perceived organizational support as a parallel mediator. 14 Given the emphasis on informational resources in structural empowerment, I further included the three items of information accessibility regarding 1) the current state of the organization, 2) the values of top management, and 3) the goals of top management, from Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, and Wilk (2001). The result was consistent with or without them. For brevity, I report the result without them. 89 Furthermore, I dropped other other-reference measures such as resource scarcity in other groups and intergroup outcome interdependence. This is because the survey items that refer to other groups are not clear about the target of reference. For example, when a leader engages in external resource sharing toward other groups, it is not clear how to respond to the questions with regards to whether the leader engages in resource sharing with many groups outside of his or her own team or frequently engages in resource sharing with only one group. The similar unclarity exists in the measure of intergroup outcome interdependence. Indeed, participants reported confusion regarding which sub-group they need to refer to (e.g., teams, departments, and other sub-unites in their organizations) and raised concerns on lack of relevance to their work environments. Instead, I kept resource scarcity in my group as a relevant moderator for the link between managers’ behaviors and group outcome. This is because, according to an evolutionary psychological perspective, resource scarcity in the group is a critical environmental factor that shapes adaptiveness of leader behaviors such as external resource acquisition and abusive supervision (Priesemuth, Schminke, Ambrose, & Folger, 2014; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008; Van Vugt et al., 2008). Moreover, in replace of external resource sharing, I included abusive supervision as a behavioral outcome. One of the primary contributions of my research is to unravel potential downsides of structural empowerment via psychological entitlement. Abusive supervision is one of the most representative constructs in studying the detrimental consequenses of leadership (Mackey, Frieder, Brees, & Martinko, 2017) and abusive supervision is closely aligned with psychological entitlement due to its implication for antisocial behaviors at work (Campbell et al., 2004; Reidy, Zeichner, Forster, & Martinez, 2008). Moreover, evolutionary psychologists have identified aggression as an adaptive behavioral response that has a long history in human evolution (e.g., Buss, 2009b). Aggression has been evolved to secure 90 valuable resources for survival and reproduction including fertile land and access to fresh water, food, tools, and weapons. Aggression can help forcibly exploit others’ resources and increase one’s own chance of survival and reproduction (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Finally, I included group innovation as a final outcome of structural empowerment in replace of group performance. Compared to group performance as an indicator of in-role, routinized task performance that is relatively formalized and algorithmic, group innovation involves explorative and learning-oriented endeavors that can be facilitated by structural empowerment (Knol & Van Linge, 2009). Also, the key motivation behind the adoption of empowerment practices in contemporary organizations is to faciliate innovation in the workplace (Burpitt & Bigoness, 1997; Spreitzer, 1995). Human displays of creativity and innovation have also been valued for their evolutionary function with regard to the increased likelihood of survival and prosperity (Byrne, 1995; Griskevicius, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006; Griskevicius et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2018). A revised version of my research model that incorporates the revised theorizing discussed above is shown in Figure 11. With these changes in mind, I measured abusive supervision using the five items ((cid:1) = .96; from 1 = “Not at all” to 5 = “A great deal”) from Mitchell and Ambrose (2007). I used supervisor ratings of abusive supervision due to concerns about social desirability, especially for measures that ask participants to report negative leader behaviors.15 (For this scale and all other additional scales, please refer to Appendix E for the items and anchors.) I measured group innovation using the four items ((cid:1) = .90; from 1 = “Far below average” to 5 = “Far above average”) from Lee et al. (2019). The coefficient alphas of 15 To maintain consistency, I also employed supervisor ratings of external resource acquisition. Supervisors are in the position where they play a major role in providing the managers with resources, thereby being able to report managers’ resource acquisition more objectively and accurately. 91 other measures are largely similar as before, such as psychological entitlement (nine items; (cid:1) = .93), psychological empowerment (twelve items; (cid:1) = .88), perceived organizational support (six items; (cid:1) = .90), resource scarcity in my group (three items; (cid:1) = .84) and external resource acquisition (four items; (cid:1) = .93). Figure 11 – Alternative Research Model I included theoretically relevant control variables that address individual, relational, task-relevant, and organizational characteristics given the changes in the theorized model. First, I controlled for self-orientation in order to rule out an alternative possibility that individual differences in self orientation, not psychological entitlement, drive antisocial behavior at work (e.g., abusive supervision) (Bobocel, 2013). I measured self-orientation using the three items ((cid:1) = .76; from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”) from De Dreu and Nauta (2009). 92 Second, I controlled for two relational characteristics between the manager and his/her supervisor such as the quantity of interaction as well as quality of relationship. This is because the quantity of interaction and quality of relationship can inflate supervisor ratings of the manager. Indeed, Duarte, Goodson, and Klich (1994) demonstrated that both duration and quality of relationship with the supervisor can influence the focal employee’s performance appraisal above and beyond the objective performance (see also Cooper, 1981, for more discussion on halo effect). The quantity of interaction was measured with one item by asking managers how many hours per week they interact with the supervisor using a 6-point scale (from 1 = “Almost never” to 6 = “More than 30 hours per week”). Managers also measured the quality of relationship with their supervisor using the seven-item scale of Leader Member Exchange (i.e., LMX; (cid:1) = .92; from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”) from Scandura and Graen (1984). Third, I controlled for job autonomy as a task characteristic that drives leader behaviors and outcomes (Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger, & Hemingway, 2005). Managers responded to three items ((cid:1) = .81; from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”) from Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). Finally, I controlled for innovative climate because organizational climate can shape leaders’ unique leadership styles (Griffin & Mathieu, 1997) and innovation outcomes (West, 1990). Supervisors responded to five items ((cid:1) = .86; from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”) from Dobni (2008). Next, I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the fit of the measurement model. The 14-factor measurement model included the focal predictor (structural empowerment), controls (self orientation, LMX, job autonomy, and innovative climate), moderators (prestige and dominance orientations and resource scarcity in my group), mediators (psychological empowerment, psychological entitlement, perceived organizational support, 93 abusive supervision, and external resource acquisition), and outcome variable (group innovation). The results revealed that the expected 14-factor measurement model had acceptable fit: χ2 (2254) = 3533.5, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .05, and SRMR = .08. The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all study variables are presented in Table 8. As shown in Table 9, I found that structural empowerment is positively related to psychological empowerment (b = .10, se = .04, p < .05) as suggested by self-determination theory. However, structural empowerment is not significantly related to perceived organizational support (b = .08, se = .06, ns), which is inconsistent with social exchange theory. Prestige and dominance orientations did not emerge as significant moderators for the relations of structural empowerment with psychological empowerment and perceived organizational support. I found a significant interaction between structural empowerment and prestige orientation on psychological entitlement (b = -.28, se = .12, p < .05). Simple slope analysis revealed that structural empowerment is positively related to psychological entitlement when prestige orientation is low (b = .24, se = .10, p < .05), but the relation is non-significant when prestige orientation is high (b = -.12, se = .10, ns; see Figure 12). I also found a significant interaction between structural empowerment and dominance orientation on psychological entitlement (b = .42, se = .11, p < .05). Simple slope analysis revealed that structural empowerment is positively related to psychological entitlement when dominance orientation is high (b = .34, se = .10, p < .05), but the relation is negative and significant when dominance orientation is low (b = -.22, se = .10, p < .05; see Figure 13). Psychological entitlement is postively related to both abusive supervision (b = .35, se = .06, p < .05) and external resource acquisition (b = .15, se = .08, p < .05). Abusive supervision is negatively related to group innovation (b = -.16, se = .05, p < .05) whereas external resource 94 acquisition is positively related to group innovation (b = .27, se = .04, p < .05). I found a significant interaction between abusive supervision and resource scarcity in the group on group innovation (b = -.10, se = .05, p < .05). Simple slope analysis revealed that abusive supervision is negatively related to group innovation when resource scarcity is high (b = -.26, se = .06, p < .05), but the relation is non-significant when resource scarcity is low (b = -.06, se = .08, ns; see Figure 14). Finally, I conducted moderated mediation. Following the recommendations of Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006) and Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007), I used a Monte Carlo bootstrap procedure with 20,000 replications to create 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the conditional indirect effects at high and low levels (+/- 1 SD) of the moderators. I further tested the differences in conditional indirect effects using an index of moderated mediation approach by Hayes (2015). As shown in Table 10, the indirect effect of structural empowerment, moderated by prestige orientation and resource scarcity in my group, on group innovation via psychological entitlement and abusive supervision is negative and significant when prestige orientation is low and resource scarcity is high (point estimate = -.0217, 95% CI = -.0536, -.0047). The indirect effect was not significant for the other combinations of these two moderators. I used Hayes’ (2015) index of moderated mediation, which quantifies the extent to which the indirect effect varies as a function of the moderator. The estimate of the index of moderated mediation was .0098 and the confidence interval of this index excluded zero (95% CI = .0006, .0329). The indirect effect of structural empowerment, moderated by dominance orientation and resource scarcity in my group, on group innovation via psychological entitlement and abusive supervision is negative and significant when dominance orientation is high and resource scarcity is high (point estimate = -.0296, 95% CI = -.0654, -.0108). The indirect effect of structural 95 empowerment, moderated by dominance orientation and resource scarcity in my group, on group innovation via psychological entitlement and abusive supervision is positive and significant when dominance orientation is low and resource scarcity is high (point estimate = .0184, 95% CI = .0033, .0462). The indirect effect was not significant for the other combinations of these two moderators. The estimate of the index of moderated mediation was -.0147 and the confidence interval of this index excluded zero (95% CI = -.0398, -.0018). Given the non-significant moderating effect of resource scarcity in the group on the relation between external resource acquisition and group innovation, I tested moderated mediation without the moderating effect of resource scarcity in my group. As shown in Table 10, the indirect effect of structural empowerment, moderated by prestige orientation, on group innovation via psychological entitlement and external resource acquisition is positive and significant when prestige orientation is low (point estimate = .0099, 95% CI = .0009, .0311). The estimate of the index of moderated mediation was -.0114 and the confidence interval of this index excluded zero (95% CI = -.0372, -.0010). The indirect effect of structural empowerment, moderated by dominance orientation, on group innovation via psychological entitlement and external resource acquisition is positive and significant when dominance orientation is high (point estimate = .0135, 95% CI = .0017, .0368). The indirect effect of structural empowerment, moderated by dominance orientation, on group innovation via psychological entitlement and external resource acquisition is negative and significant when dominance orientation is low (point estimate = -.0084, 95% CI = -.0274, -.0004). The indirect effect was not significant for the other combination of the two moderators (i.e., prestige and dominance orientations). The estimate of the index of moderated mediation was .0171 and the confidence interval of this index excluded zero (95% CI = .0021, .0445). 96 Table 8 – Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 2; a revised model) Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 3.33 5.09 4.16 1.23 6.63 -.08 .61 -.12 .07 3.67 1.49 .03 .02 -.04 4.22 4.07 .72 .74 .78 -.09 .06 .14 .17 -.07 -.01 .15 -.13 .28 7 Innovative climate 3.70 -.03 -.19 -.03 .13 .16 .07 3.34 .83 -.05 .01 .00 .04 .09 .30 .12 3.96 .60 -.05 -.03 .05 -.02 .19 .28 .13 .29 2.42 .86 -.01 .21 .08 -.08 -.09 -.05 -.05 .10 .09 3.76 .83 .07 -.25 -.06 .03 .31 .36 .30 .25 .34 -.05 1 Education 2 Formal rank 3 Self orientation 4 Hours of interaction 5 LMX 6 Job autonomy 8 9 10 11 12 13 Structural empowerment Psychological empowerment Psychological entitlement Perceived organizational support Abusive supervision External resource acquisition 15 16 17 Prestige orientation Dominance orientation Resource scarcity in my group 1.38 .89 .01 .27 -.04 .14 -.04 -.07 .06 .05 .00 .37 -.09 3.14 1.01 -.07 -.03 .06 .17 .11 .07 .06 .18 .09 .11 .13 .19 14 Group innovation 3.95 .70 -.16 .00 -.01 .09 .08 .03 .12 .14 .10 -.07 .12 -.14 .36 3.93 .64 .07 .07 .20 .03 -.02 .02 -.03 .22 .35 .30 .08 .11 .08 -.01 3.59 .67 .00 .12 .17 .00 -.10 .07 -.06 .24 .27 .36 .16 .16 .06 -.06 .60 3.29 .96 .09 .07 -.02 -.09 -.09 -.04 -.03 .03 .04 .22 -.03 .11 .08 -.07 .15 .11 Note: N = 249. All correlations above |0.12| are significant at p < 0.05, two-tailed. 97 Table 9 – Results of Path Analysis (Study 2; a revised model) Dependent Variables Variables PEMP PENT POS AS ERA GI Education -.02 (.03) -.01 (.04) .06 (.04) .02 (.04) -.05 (.05) -.08 (.03)* Formal rank -.01 (.01) .02 (.01)* -.03 (.01)* .03 (.01)* -.01 (.01) .01 (.01) Self orientation Hours of interaction -.08 (.06) .01 (.09) -.18 (.08)* -.09 (.09) .07 (.11) -.07 (.07) -.02 (.02) -.06 (.03) .01 (.03) .09 (.04)* .12 (.04)* .01 (.03) LMX .14 (.05)* -.13 (.08) .30 (.07)* .01 (.08) .00 (.10) -.06 (.06) Job autonomy Innovative climate .13 (.07) -.06 (.10) .29 (.09)* -.06 (.10) .08 (.14) -.01 (.09) .06 (.05) .01 (.07) .21 (.06)* .13 (.07) -.03 (.09) .08 (.05) SE .10 (.04)* .06 (.06) .08 (.06) .01 (.07) .16 (.08) .07 (.05) Prestige orientation Dominance orientation PEMP PENT POS RSM AS ERA SE × Prestige orientation SE × Dominance orientation .28 (.07)* .19 (.10) -.06 (.09) .07 (.07) .28 (.09)* .30 (.08)* -.03 (.09) -.28 (.12)* .05 (.11) .13 (.08) .42 (.11)* -.17 (.10) -.01 (.09) .01 (.11) .06 (.07) .35 (.06)* .15 (.08)* -.03 (.05) -.05 (.08) .10 (.09) .04 (.06) -.05 (.04) -.16 (.05)* .27 (.04)* -.10 (.05)* AS × RSM ERA × RSM Note: N = 249. Values in parentheses are standard errors; entries are unstandardized coefficients. * p < .05. SE = Structural empowerment. PEMP = Psychological empowerment. PENT = Psychological entitlement. POS = Perceived organizational support. AS = Abusive supervision. ERA = External resource acquisition. GI = Group innovation. RSM = Resource scarcity in my group. .04 (.04) 98 Table 10 – Moderated Mediation Results across Levels of Prestige Orientation, Dominance Orientation, and Resource Scarcity in My Group (Study 2; a revised model) DV: Group Innovation Mediators Prestige Orientation Dominance Orientation Resource Scarcity Conditional Indirect Effect CI (Lower) CI (Upper) High High Low Low High Low High .0104 -.0054 .0356 Low .0025 -.0025 .0204 High -.0217 -.0536 -.0047 Low -.0052 -.0277 .0056 High High -.0296 -.0654 -.0108 High Low -.0070 -.0315 .0089 Low High .0184 .0033 .0462 Low Low .0044 -.0047 .0236 High Low -.0048 -.0212 .0015 .0099 .0009 .0311 .0135 .0017 .0368 -.0084 -.0274 -.0004 Psychological Entitlement and Abusive Supervision Psychological Entitlement and External Resource Acquisition Note: N = 249. The indirect relationships are bolded if they are significant (i.e., confidence intervals do not include zero). 99 Figure 12 – Interaction for Psychological Entitlement Moderated by Prestige Orientation (Study 2; a revised model) 3 2 1 t n e m e l t i t n E l a c i g o l o h c y s P Low Prestige Orientation High Prestige Orientation Low Structural Empowerment High Structural Empowerment Figure 13 – Interaction for Psychological Entitlement Moderated by Dominance Orientation (Study 2; a revised model) 3 2 1 t n e m e l t i t n E l a c i g o l o h c y s P Low Dominance Orientation High Dominance Orientation Low Structural Empowerment High Structural Empowerment 100 Figure 14 – Interaction for Psychological Entitlement Moderated by Resource Scarcity in My Group (Study 2; a revised model) n o i t a v o n n I p u o r G 4 3 2 Low Resource Scarcity in My Group High Resource Scarcity in My Group Low Abusive Supervision High Abusive Supervision ROBUSTNESS CHECK AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES In order to further examine robustness of the current findings, I ran supplemental analysis. First, I employed empowering leadership as an alternative measure of structural empowerment. Indeed, Wallace, Johnson, Mathe, and Paul (2011) conceptualized and operationalized empowering leadership as structural empowerment because the empowering leader implements policies, practices, and procedures with the objective of empowering collective members. I utilized the three items (e.g., “My supervisor made many decisions together with me”; (cid:1) = .82; from 1 = “Not at all” to 5 = “A great deal”) from Schilpzand, Houston, and Cho (2018) to measure empowering leadership. The result is consistent when I used empowering leadership as an alternative measure of structural empowerment. That is, I 101 found a significant interaction between empowering leadership and prestige orientation on psychological entitlement (b = -.28, se = .12, p < .05). Simple slope analysis revealed that empowering leadership is positively related to psychological entitlement when prestige orientation is low (b = .30, se = .10, p < .05), but the relation is non-significant when prestige orientation is high (b = -.06, se = .10, ns). I also found a significant interaction between empowering leadership and dominance orientation on psychological entitlement (b = .35, se = .11, p < .05). Simple slope analysis revealed that empowering leadership is positively related to psychological entitlement when dominance orientation is high (b = .34, se = .09, p < .05), but the relation is non-significant when dominance orientation is low (b = -.11, se = .09, ns). Moreover, consistent with the prior result, psychological entitlement is postively related to both abusive supervision (b = .36, se = .06, p < .05) and external resource acquisition (b = .16, se = .08, p < .05). Abusive supervision is negatively related to group innovation (b = -.15, se = .05, p < .05) whereas external resource acquisition is positively related to group innovation (b = .27, se = .04, p < .05). I found a significant interaction between abusive supervision and resource scarcity in the group on group innovation (b = -.11, se = .05, p < .05). Simple slope analysis revealed that abusive supervision is negatively related to group innovation when resource scarcity is high (b = -.25, se = .06, p < .05), but the relation is non-significant when resource scarcity is low (b = -.05, se = .08, ns). Thus, empowering leadership as an alternative measure of structural empowerment demonstrated the consistent empirical pattern with the original measure of structural empowerment. Second, I tested the moderating effects of prestige and dominance orientations on the second stage of the model (the relations of psychological states with leader behaviors). The results revealed that none of the interaction effects were non-significant except for one. The 102 interaction effect of psychological empowerment and dominance orientation on external resource acquisition was negative and significant, b = -.47, se = .22, p < .05. The result indicates that psychologically empowered managers are less likely to acquire more resources when dominance orientation is higher (vs. lower). One possible explanation is that psychological empowerment involves self-determination and psychologically empowered individuals may prefer to handle their within-group issues on their own and dominance orientation strengthens this independent tendency. Dominant individuals have a strong ego and therefore do not like to appear dependent on others, including higher-ups in upper-level management. All other combinations of interactions were non-significant (the interaction effect of psychological empowerment and prestige orientation on abusive supervision, b = .11, se = .16, ns; the interaction effect of psychological empowerment and dominance orientation on abusive supervision, b = -.16, se = .18, ns; the interaction effect of psychological entitlement and prestige orientation on abusive supervision, b = .15, se = .13, ns; the interaction effect of psychological entitlement and dominance orientation on abusive supervision, b = -.07, se = .12, ns; the interaction effect of perceived organizational support and prestige orientation on abusive supervision, b = -.01, se = .14, ns; the interaction effect of perceived organizational support and dominance orientation on abusive supervision, b = .06, se = .14, ns; the interaction effect of psychological empowerment and prestige orientation on external resource acquisition, b = .37, se = .19, ns; the interaction effect of psychological entitlement and prestige orientation on external resource acquisition, b = .06, se = .15, ns; the interaction effect of psychological entitlement and dominance orientation on external resource acquisition, b = -.01, se = .15, ns; the interaction effect of perceived organizational support and prestige orientation on external resource acquisition, b = -.26, se = .17, ns; the interaction effect of perceived organizational support and dominance orientation on 103 external resource acquisition, b = .33, se = .17, ns). Further, I tested the moderating effects of prestige and dominance orientations on the third stage of the model (the relations of leader behaviors with group outcome). The result revealed that all the interaction effects are non- significant (the interaction effect of abusive supervision and prestige orientation on group innovation, b = -.12, se = .13, ns; the interaction effect of abusive supervision and dominance orientation on group innovation, b = .17, se = .13, ns; the interaction effect of external resource acquisition and prestige orientation on group innovation, b = -.09, se = .08, ns; the interaction effect of external resource acquisition and dominance orientation on group innovation, b = .14, se = .08, ns). Taken together, the results indicate that prestige and dominance orientations have unique moderating effects on managers’ psychological reactions to structural empowerment.16 Third, I employed resource scarcity in the group as a first-stage moderator for the relations of structural empowerment with psychological empowerment, psychological entitlement, and perceived organizational support. The result revealed that none of the interactions were significant (the interaction effect of structural empowerment and resource scarcity in the group on psychological empowerment, b = .04, se = .04, ns; the interaction effect of structural empowerment and resource scarcity in the group on psychological entitlement, b = .11, se = .06, ns; the interaction effect of structural empowerment and resource scarcity in the group on perceived organizational support, b = -.02, se = .05, ns). Moreover, I included resource scarcity in the group as a second-stage moderator for the relations of psychological empowerment, psychological enttilement, and perceived organizational support with abusive supervision and external resource sharing. The result revealed that none of the interactions were 16 I further tested the possibility of three-way interactions (structural empowerment × prestige orientation × dominance orientation) but the result was non-significant. 104 significant (the interaction effect of psychological empowerment and resource scarcity in the group on abusive supervision, b = .04, se = .09, ns; the interaction effect of psychological entitlement and resource scarcity in the group on abusive supervision, b = .10, se = .06, ns; the interaction effect of perceived organizational support and resource scarcity in the group on abusive supervision, b = .04, se = .06, ns; the interaction effect of psychological empowerment and resource scarcity in the group on external resource acquisition, b = -.13, se = .12, ns; the interaction effect of psychological entitlement and resource scarcity in the group on abusive supervision, b = .04, se = .08, ns; the interaction effect of perceived organizational support and resource scarcity in the group on external resource acquisition, b = .07, se = .08, ns). Further, I tested resource scarcity in other groups as a moderator for the second stage (psychological states – leader behaviors) and third stage (leader behaviors – group outcome) models. However, none of the interaction effects were significant (the interaction effect of psychological empowerment and resource scarcity in other groups on abusive supervision, b = -.07, se = .09, ns; the interaction effect of psychological entitlement and resource scarcity in other groups on abusive supervision, b = .11, se = .06, ns; the interaction effect of perceived organizational support and resource scarcity in other groups on abusive supervision, b = .11, se = .07, ns; the interaction effect of psychological empowerment and resource scarcity in other groups on external resource acquisition, b = -.16, se = .11, ns; the interaction effect of psychological entitlement and resource scarcity in other groups on abusive supervision, b = .01, se = .07, ns; the interaction effect of perceived organizational support and resource scarcity in other groups on external resource acquisition, b = .10, se = .09, ns). Taken together, I found the unique moderating effect of resource scarcity in the group for the relation of abusive supervision with group innovation. 105 Fourth, despite my use of an overall index of structural empowermernt, it is possible that individual dimensions of this overall scale may have differential effects on outcomes. Thus, I replaced the index with individual dimensions (i.e., selection, training, rewards, performance appraisals, use of technology, partcipation in strategic decision making, and working hours) and tested whether results are consistent. These analyses revealed that the interaction effect of selection and prestige orientation on psychological entitlement was non-significant (b = -.11, se = .07, ns) whereas the interaction effect of selection and dominance orientation on psychological entitlment was significant (b = .23, se = .07, p < .05). Both presitge and dominance orientations significantly moderated the relation of training with psychological entitlement (for prestige orientation, b = -.19, se = .09, p < .05; for dominance orientation, b = .22, se = .09, p < .05). The interaction effect of rewards and prestige orientation on psychological entitlement was non- significant (b = -.11, se = .08, ns) whereas the interaction effect of rewards and dominance orientation on psychological entitlment was significant (b = .18, se = .07, p < .05). The interaction effect of performance appraisals and prestige orientation on psychological entitlement was non-significant (b = -.11, se = .08, ns) whereas the interaction effect of performance appraisals and dominance orientation on psychological entitlment was significant (b = .16, se = .07, p < .05). Both presitge and domiannce orientations did not significantly moderate the relation of use of technology and psychological entitlement (for prestige orientation, b = -.04, se = .09, ns; for dominance orientation, b = .17, se = .09, ns). The interaction effect of partcipation in strategic decision making and prestige orientation on psychological entitlement was non- significant (b = -.09, se = .09, ns) whereas the interaction effect of partcipation in strategic decision making and dominance orientation on psychological entitlment was significant (b = .21, se = .08, p < .05). Finally, the interaction effect of working hours and prestige orientation on 106 psychological entitlement was non-significant (b = -.10, se = .07, ns) whereas the interaction effect of working hours and dominance orientation on psychological entitlment was significant (b = .16, se = .07, p < .05). The results collectively revealed that the dimensions of structural empowement have a synergistic effect in predicting outcomes. That is, the collective measure of structrural empowerment has stronger predictive power than its individual dimensions. This is consistent with prior work on organizational practices that has shown that the systems of practices have stronger effects than individual practices (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006). Finally, I ran analyses without any control variables. Results were largely consistent with a couple of exceptions. Specifically, I found a significant interaction between structural empowerment and prestige orientation on psychological entitlement (b = -.25, se = .13, p < .05). I also found a significant interaction between structural empowerment and dominance orientation on psychological entitlement (b = .39, se = .11, p < .05). Psychological entitlement is postively related to abusive supervision (b = .37, se = .06, p < .05) but it is not significantly related to external resource acquisition (b = .12, se = .07, ns). Abusive supervision is negatively related to group innovation (b = -.13, se = .05, p < .05) whereas external resource acquisition is positively related to group innovation (b = .27, se = .04, p < .05). The interaction between abusive supervision and resource scarcity in the group on group innovation was marginally significant (b = -.09, se = .05, p < .10). It is also important to note that my inclusion of control variables is theory-based and all of the control variables are significantly related to the criterion variables of interest (Becker, 2005). The use of control variables that are conceptually and empirically related to criterion variables can remove confounding effects of extraneous nuisance variables, rule out alternative explanations, and reduce error variance (Becker, 2005; Schwab, 2005). 107 GENERAL DISCUSSION The aim of my dissertation is to provide a more nuanced view of the downstream consequences of how managers navigate structural empowerment through the lens of evolutionary psychology. In particular, the constrasting views on whether structural empowerment can promote middle managers’ sense of empowerment or entitlement is an important question to address due to the increasing popularity and adoption of empowerment intiatives in contemporary organizations. In addressing this question, my dissertation aims to contribute to the literature in three important ways. First, I complement the predominant focus on the link between structural empowerment and psychological empowerment by providing accounts for an unintended consequence of structural empowerment, namely entitled managers. Second, my focus on managers’ external resource exchanges as outcomes of structural empowerment expands conceptual boundaries of the role of leadership in the literature. Third, my dissertation provides an example of how insights from evolutionary psychology can be leveraged to gain a better understanding of why managers do what they do within contemporary organizational structures. The results of Studies 1 and 2 show consistent findings. Prestige and dominance orientations significantly moderated the relation of structural empowerment with psychological entitlement. Consistent with Study 1, structural empowerment was more positively related to psychological entitlement when dominance orientation was higher (vs. lower) or when prestige orientation was lower (vs. higher) in Study 2. Also, the moderating effects of prestige and dominance orientations on the relation of structural empowerment with psychological empowerment were non-significant both Studies 1 and 2. Consistent with Study 1, structural empowerment was positively related to psychological empowerment in Study 2. Thus, the results 108 consistently show that individual differences have stronger effects on managers’ feelings of entitlement than psychological empowerment in response to structural empowerment. The results of Study 2 further examine the downstream consequences of managers’ feelings of entitlement. The results reveal that psychological entitlement was positively related to managers’ abusive supervision and external resource acquisition. Abusive supervision had a negative relation with group innovation and external resource acquisition was positively related to group innovation. The detrimental consequence of abusive supervision for group innovation was stronger when resource scarcity in the group was high. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS My dissertation has several important implications for advancing extant theory. First, the results provide empirical evidence of the potential dark side of structural empowerment. That is, structural empowerment can boost employees’ feelings of entitlement especially when managers are low in prestige orientation or high in dominance orientation, which may lead to abusive supervision and subsequently damage group functioning. This is an important addition to the literature on structural empowerment in which scholars have predominantly drawn on social exchange theory and self-determination theory to highlight the benefits of structural empowerment. It is also noteworthy that results were consistent when I controlled for job autonomy and my supplemental analysis further revealed that job autonomy, in replace of structural empowerment, did not yield the similar pattern of the results. That is, job autonomy did not have a main effect on psychological entitlement (b = -.11, se = .07, ns) and it did not interact with prestige orientation (b = -.13, se = .16, ns) nor dominance orientation (b = .18, se = .14, ns) in predicting psychological entitlement. One reason for this different pattern of findings is perhaps because job autonomy is focused on task-related freedom and independence 109 whereas structural empowerment incorporates relational aspects of decision-making that involve managers’ influence over others. Structural empowerment provides perceptions of control over others that can be a source of one’s special position in a group relative to others whereas job autonomy per se is not sufficient in providing such sense of uniqueness and specialness. Thus, my results show that the observed dark side of structural empowerment is unique to structural empowerment. Second, my dissertation shows that psychological entitlement plays a role as a double- edge sword that can simultaneously benefit and harm group functioning. As shown in Study 2, although psychological entitlement is positively related to abusive supervision, entitled managers also seek to acquire more resources from upper-level management. They may do so for rather selfish reasons (e.g., their sense of deservingness for more resources) but managers’ interests are often aligned with success of their groups and they have a motivation to utilize acquired resources to improve group functioning. This is because their performance and rewards, as group leaders, are contingent on their group outcomes. For example, entitled managers can expect personal benefits such as promotion and increased compensation. Thus, they may acquire more resources from upper-level management without necessarily exploiting and holding all the acquired resources themselves. The upside of psychological entitlement, especially with regards its impact on external resource acquisition, is consistent with an evolutionary viewpoint that emphasizes the survival utility of our evolved psychological states. According to an evolutionary psychological perspective, human minds have evolved to adapt to the social environment and to help ensure the survival of individuals. If psychological entitlement has no benefits for human survival, it would have not been evolved as one of prevalent human psychological characteristics. Thus, 110 psychological entitlement has its own utility and my research shows that it can indeed help individuals acquire more resources from their external environments. This insight is novel to the literature on psychological entitlement that has largely portrayed psychological entitlement in a negative light due to its implications for antisocial behaviors at work. While this is also true in my data that psychological entitlement leads to abusive supervision, my research also identifies its potential upside in terms of external resource acquisition. Thus, an evolutionary psychological perspective emphasizes a balanced view on psychological entitlement. Third, my research identifies resource scarcity as an important boundary condition as suggested by an evolutionary psychological perspective. In particular, managers’ expression of aggression in a form of abusive supervision is especially detrimental when a group suffers from lack of available resources. According to an evolutionary perspective, resource scarcity creates a situation where cooperation is particularly important for survival. When resources are abundant, individuals have less need for cooperation because they can have easy access to important resources for survival without others’ help. In contrast, individuals have a greater need to work together, help each other, and share their own resources with one another because by doing so, they can obtain a variety of necessary but scare resources that help ensure their survival. Abusive supervision undermines this cooperative climate in the group, which is even more detrimental when a group lacks important resources. In contrast, I found that external resource acquisition can benefit group innovation regardless of availability of resources in the group. This is perhaps because additional gains in resources can generally increase flexibility and adaptability within the group. For example, by having extra individuals, financial resources, technology, and knowledge, groups can accumulate slack resources that can be spent on exploratory purposes. Indeed, research demonstrates that 111 extra resources allow for new product development, research, and experimentation (Bourgeois, 1981; Cyert & March, 1963; Marlin & Geiger, 2015; Nohria & Gulati, 1996). Fourth, my identification of external resource acquisition as a critical driver of group innovation also contributes to the literature on leadership. Leadership scholars have largely focused on within-group leadership behaviors with regards to how leaders treat their immediate followers, such as transformational leadership, servant leadership, empowering leadership, initiating structure, and consideration to name a few. However, the popularity of empowerment initiatives and greater emphasis on innovation and flexibility in contemporary organizations require group leaders to take a greater responsibility in collaborating with other business units and subgroups in organizations and securing resources for their group functioning. Thus, going beyond what leaders do inside the group, leaders’ external activities and leadership behaviors outside their own groups can be an important determinant of group effectiveness. Drawing on an evolutionary psychological perspective, my dissertation highlights the importance of external resource acquisition for its impact on group survival and prosperity. I encourage future researchers to conceptualize and explore a broader range of leadership activities outside the group. Finally, it is important to note several unexpected findings in my tests of the hypotheses. To begin, supervisor ratings of structural empowerment did not produce any significant results with regards to its main and moderating effects on psychological empowerment and psychological entitlement. However, my use of managers’ own ratings of structural empowerment showed consistent patterns of the results with Study 1 regarding the moderating effects of prestige and dominance orientations on the relation of structural empowerment with psychological entitlement. Also it is noteworthy that managers’ own ratings of structural 112 empowerment were positively related to psychological empowerment whereas supervisor ratings of structural empowerment were not. Given that a large body of research on structural empowerment has shown consistent results about the positive effect of structural empowerment on psychological empowerment, I suspect that supervisor ratings of structural empowerment are potentially problematic in capturing managers’ true sense of structural empowerment in organizations. As noted in Study 2 interim discussion, Spreitzer (1996) encouraged the use of self-report in capturing structural empowerment because structural empowerment is about perceptions of work environments rather than objective reality. Thus, non-significant result of structural empowerment in my original test of the hypotheses can be due to measurement issues rather than theoretical issues. Moreover, I did not find significant moderating effects of prestige and dominance orientations on the relation of structural empowerment with psychological empowerment in both studies. One possibility is that all the participants of my studies were recruited in North America and it is likely that structural empowerment is generally considered positive in a cultural context where independence and autonomy are highly appreciated. Another possibility is that the impact of structural empowerment is less likely to differ across individuals. Rather, structural empowerment has differential effects on psychological outcomes depending on other contextual factors such as HR practices. Indeed, studies on HR management systems suggest that structural aspects of organizations are not effective when they operate independently. Thus, scholars on strategic HR management emphasize that organizational structures and practices should be internally consistent and mutually reinforcing (e.g., Combs et al., 2006; Huselid, 1995). Thus, I suspect that the effectiveness of structural empowerment may depend on its alignment with other organizational structures and practices rather than individual differences. 113 It is also noteworthy that my tests of the hypotheses using intergroup outcome interdependence and external resource sharing turn out to be non-significant. In retrospect, I find that the measures involving intergroup interactions are potentially problematic due to their lack of clarity. Most organizations consist of multiple layers and levels of groups and the target of reference regarding “other groups” can be unclear. For example, when asked about how they interact with other groups in organizations, participants can refer to teams within departments, other departments, or other business units. It is also possible that some organizations have more complex group structures than others (e.g., a matrix structure where individuals report to multiple teams). Despite non-significant findings, therefore, my research informs future researchers that they need to be extra careful about the target of reference in asking questions regarding intergroup interactions. In studying intergroup interactions, one possible solution is to study a single organization where researchers can control for differences between organizations and provide participants with clearer guidelines about what they mean by “other groups.” Finally, the results of my analyses involving group task performance were not significant in testing the moderating effect of resource scarcity in the group whereas the moderating effect was significant when I used group innovation an outcome in replace of group task performance. A potential reason may be because resource scarcity in the group has a more immediate effect on group innovation than group task performance. In particular, availability of resources within the group is critical for explorative activities and experiments that help find novel solutions and new business models. In contrast, groups can relatively better maintain task performance in spite of resource scarcity in the group because task performance tends to be more routinized and habitual, thereby being more efficient in dealing with unforeseen and uncertain changes in the environment. 114 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS In response to the increasing prevalence of empowerment initiatives in contemporary organizations, my dissertation urges scholars and practitioners to have a balanced view of structural empowerment. Drawing on the trickle-down viewpoint of structural empowerment, practitioners often believe that offering managers greater autonomy and power will benefit group functioning because these managers are likely to ‘pay it forward.’ For example, the popular management press supports this view by noting “the goal for an empowered leader is to have everyone around them feel empowered too” (IRIS, 2017) and empowerment “cascades top down – from the managers at the highest level to those at the lowest level” (Forbes, 2011). These beliefs largely contribute to the increasing adoption of empowerment initiatives in contemporary organizations (Block, 1987; Kanter, 1993). My dissertation informs practitioners about potential downside of structural empowerment. That is, structural empowerment may promote managers’ feelings of entitlement, which can subsequently lead to abusive supervision and undermine group innovation. The unexpected consequences of structural empowerment are more salient for managers with strong dominance orientation. The result further reveals that the detrimental consequence of abusive supervision is even worse when a group is lacking important resources for their functioning. Finally, my research finds that managers’ engagement in external resource exchanges can be conducive to group innovation. My findings have important implications for top-level executives, middle managers, and bottom-line employees. For top-level executives who are key decision makers in organizations, my research suggests that they may need to pay close attention to who they are empowering. Top-level executives have formal authority and power in making decisions about selection and 115 promotion in their organizations. If they decide to select and promote managers with dominance orientation and grant high levels of structural empowerment to them, these managers may feel entitled and engage in abusive supervision, which subsequently undermines group innovation. Thus, their decisions for selection and promotion can have far-reaching consequences. My research also suggests that prestige-oriented leaders are less likely to feel entitled as a consequence of structural empowerment. Thus, in order to reduce abusive supervision in organizations, top-level executives may consider allowing more structural empowerment for prestige-oriented managers whereas they may constrain authority and responsibility of dominance-oriented managers. In addition, top-level executives may try to promote a culture of prestige within organizations. That is, top-level executives are in the position where they can imprint their organizations with their values and shape a company culture (Berson, Oreg, & Dvir, 2007). They can use their influence to recognize and praise middle managers who consider others’ needs and wishes, thereby setting a role model for others to respect and follow. My research also speaks to middle manager who are leading their followers with substantial responsibility and authority due to structural empowerment. Given the increasing need for innovation in the current business world, the findings of my research suggest that managers need to be aware of the implications of their leadership behaviors for group innovation. That is, my findings indicate that abusive supervision is negative related to group innovation whereas external resource acquisition is positively related to group innovation. In particular, abusive supervision is even more detrimental when their group suffers from lack of resources. Thus, under a difficult time and situation (i.e., resource scarcity), managers need to be extra careful in their expressions and behaviors toward their followers. Selfish and exploitative behaviors such as abusive supervision can make the situation worse and hinder group innovation 116 by undermining a cooperative climate that is necessary for getting through a difficult situation. Moreover, my research indicates that managers need to be proactive in acquiring necessary resources for their groups. This is because acquisition of extra resources can afford their groups to explore new possibilities and experiment with new ideas, thereby enhancing group innovation. Going beyond traditional approaches to leadership that focus on within-group leader behaviors, I encourage practitioners to look out for a broad range of leadership behaviors outside their own groups that can impact group effectiveness. Finally, I encourage bottom-line employees in organizations to be aware of leader characteristics and their psychological states. Prior research suggests that prestige and dominance orientations of others can be observable and other-reports of prestige and dominance orientations show similar patterns of predictions with self-reports (e.g., Cheng et al., 2010). Thus, followers and bottom-line employees can reasonably estimate the levels of prestige and dominance orientations of their leaders. My findings indicate that dominance-oriented (prestige-oriented) leaders are more (less) likely to feel entitled. Thus, employees may be able to know who is more likely to feel entitled as a consequence of structural empowerment. However, it is important to keep in mind that entitled managers are not always detrimental. Despite their engagement in abusive supervision, entitled managers are also more likely to acquire resources from upper-level management. Thus, bottom-line employees working with entitled managers may want to have a balanced view on these managers. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Despite strengths in my research design (e.g., replicating findings across two different methods and samples and collecting multi-wave and multi-source data), my dissertation is limited in a few ways. First, data for all studies were collected in North America. The cultural 117 context of North America may have affected the current empirical patterns because how people construe and respond to structural empowerment can be different depending on their cultural contexts. For example, western cultures are characterized as low power distance and high individualism (Hofstede, 2001) and structural empowerment is more likely to be viewed positively in such contexts. This is particularly relevant because I found a significant main effect of structural empowerment on psychological empowerment across the two studies whereas I did not find support for individual differences in managers’ levels of psychological empowerment in response to structural empowerment. One possibility is that managers in Western cultures are generally educated and grow up in a society where autonomy and independence are valued and appreciated. In contrast, in Eastern cultures, the exercise of control and power by higher-ups tends to be considered more acceptable (Schaubroeck, Shen, & Chong, 2017). Thus, it is possible that structural empowerment has more nuanced effects on psychological empowerment in Eastern cultures that are characterized by high power-distance and collectivism. Second, despite the theorized micro-mediation mechanisms that link structural empowerment to psychological empowerment and entitlement (i.e., perception of being trusted, prosocial motivation, sense of superiority, and proself motivation), none of them received empirical support. Given the significant interaction effects of structural empowerment and prestige and dominance orientations on psychological entitlement, it is important to clarify what the potential mechanism is for these effects. As noted before, one possibility is that managers’ perception of control over others mediates the effects. However, given the limited availability of data, I could not empirically test this mechanism. Thus, I encourage future researchers to explore and collect data to answer the question of why structural empowerment can promote entitled managers. 118 Third, although data were collected across time from multiple sources, some of the observed relations were cross-sectional. For example, the relations of abusive supervision and external resource acquisition with group innovation are tested using the single source from the supervisors. However, it is noteworthy that my hypotheses primarily focused on interaction effects, not main effects. Thus, common method variance is less concerning because common method variance is unlikely to produce spurious interactions (Evans, 1985; Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010). Another concern about my data is that supervisors’ reports of managers’ leader behavior and group outcomes can be subjective and biased. Supervisors are susceptible to cognitive biases such as halo effects, recency illusion, and selection bias in evaluating the managers. Thus, future research can attempt to replicate my findings using other sources such as objective performance data and follower evaluations of leader behaviors. My utilization of an evolutionary psychological perspective in organizational settings opens up new avenues for future research. To begin, the evolved characteristics of prestige and dominance orientations can be applied to a broad range of group dynamics in the workplace. As an example, conflict within and between groups is an important area of research in the literatures on both evolutionary psychology (Van Vugt & Grabo, 2015) and organizational research (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012; Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006), and prestige- and dominance-oriented leaders are likely to differ in handling group conflicts. Prestige-oriented leaders are more likely to use verbal persuasion and try to incorporate different perspectives of group members whereas dominance-oriented leaders are more likely to use coercion and force in handling conflicts. The effectiveness of different approaches to handling conflicts also can be different depending on the context. For example, the use of force and coercion by dominant leaders may seem negative and destructive in handling within group conflicts because it may not provide an opportunity to 119 address deep-level concerns and problems brought up by group members. However, forceful and dominant tactics of conflict management can be also effective in handling inter-group conflicts because such tactics can demonstrate confidence and competitiveness. Thus, the effectiveness of behavioral tactics used by prestige- and dominance-oriented leaders may be context-specific and future research can explore a variety of contexts that lead these characteristics of leaders to be beneficial or detrimental. Furthermore, resource scarcity has been a critical condition that shapes human survival and accordingly, individuals tend to pay close attention and react to issues of resource scarcity in their organizations. Individuals encounter social dilemma in the face of resource scarcity in their environments because they need to decide whether to try to benefit themselves or others in the group. Given that the uncertain and fast-changing contemporary business environments often create a condition of resource scarcity in organizations, it is important to understand how companies can lead organizational members to prioritize the collective benefits to their self- interests in the face of resource scarcity. Future researchers can try to integrate insights from research on commitment, trust, and leadership in the field of organizational behavior and the literature on evolutionary psychology to investigate how organizations can constructively deal with such social dilemma. Finally, drawing on an evolutionary perspective of work design (Nicholson, 2012), future research can explore how individuals navigate other forms of organizational structures and job design features beyond structural empowerment. For example, job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 2012) identify five dimensions of job design features such as task variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Also a relational job design perspective emphasizes the opportunity to make a prosocial difference at work (Grant, 2007). The insights 120 from an evolutionary psychological perspective may provide novel insights into how evolved characteristics of humans will interact with such work design features in shaping psychological states and behaviors of organizational members. For example, evolutionary psychologists have attempted to unravel the basis of altruistic motivation of humans, which align with a relational job design perspective and task significance of job characteristics model. An interesting avenue of future research is that how human evolved characteristics shape individuals’ responses to a variety of work design features and their ultimate success. CONCLUSION In respond to the fast-changing, uncertain, and volatile business environments, structural empowerment has gained its popularity for its potential unleash the potential of employees and create an innovative workplace. However, the experiences of practitioners provide mixed viewpoints regarding the effectiveness of structural empowerment. Indeed, my interviews with managers reveal that while it is true that some managers with structural empowerment “experiment with new ways of doing work, learn from failures, and implement solutions that fit their own preferences and the preferences of their teams,” “find best way to accomplish the goals in their own way,” “use their own motivations to complete the assignments,” and “create a norm of participation even at the lowest levels,” they also observed its potential unintended consequences. My interviewees reported incidents of managers’ engagement in “self-interested decision making,” “leaving work early with no accountability and not accomplishing anything,” “evaluating people based on their personal feelings,” and making decisions that “are not driven from a customer perspective, driving unnecessary waste into process” as the unintended consequences of structural empowerment. 121 My research provides an answer to this question of why there are differences in managers responses to structural empowerment by drawing on an evolutionary psychological perspective. I theorize that our evolved characteristics of prestige and dominance orientations shape our unique interpretations of and psychological response to structural empowerment, resulting in divergent behaviors and performance outcomes. Indeed, the results of my analyses show that dominance-oriented managers are more likely to feel entitled in response to structural empowerment whereas prestige-oriented managers do not experience such elevation of psychological entitlement. More telling, psychological entitlement can be a double-edge sword for group innovation because one the one hand, it can be helpful for group innovation via external resource acquisition but on the other hand, it can also undermine group innovation via abusive supervision. The detrimental consequence of abusive supervision is especially harmful when a group suffers from lack of available resources. All in all, my dissertation highlights a balanced view on structural empowerment. I encourage practitioners to be aware of the possibility that they may not always reap the benefits of structural empowerment as expected. The consequences of structural empowerment are dependent on individual characteristics (e.g., prestige and dominance orientations) and situational constraints (e.g., resource scarcity). Thus, rather than considering structural empowerment as a panacea for all the problems, it is important to keep an eye on how the impact of structural empowerment unfolds across different individuals and situations. It is my hope that the current research can be useful in making good use of structural empowerment and creating an innovative and flourishing workplace. 122 APPENDICES 123 APPENDIX A – Manipulation Conditions (Study 1) Table 11 – Manipulation Conditions (Study 1) Control condition Congratulations! You are selected as Group Leader of Team Green based upon your previous responses to our survey. Prestige orientation condition Congratulations! You are selected as Group Leader of Team Green based upon your previous responses to our survey. In particular, you had higher score on prestige compared to the other two members. Specifically, as a leader, you are generally respected and admired by others and you are willing to share your knowledge, expertise, and skills with others. Others come to you for advice and expertise. Dominance orientation condition Congratulations! You are selected as Group Leader of Team Green based upon your previous responses to our survey. In particular, you had higher score on dominance compared to the other two members. Specifically, as a leader, you tend to be assertive and decisive and you are capable of disciplining and controlling others when needed. You are able to enforce coordinated and collective action among group members. 124 Table 11 (cont’d) The structural empowerment condition: 1) selection of group members These are four potential group members and their writings about their experiences, skills, or expertise. Please select two members you would like to work with for the next group task. From NH: Hey, I worked in an HR department for about 3 years so far. I studied psychology for my bachelor's degree. I have a good understanding of employment issues at work. From RJ: I like to compose music and play musical instruments. I would say I am artistic. From LF: I am a manager in the car industry. I am in charge of hiring and evaluating the sales people in our company. I have five years of work experience. From BS: Well.. I work as a fashion model from time to time. I am a visual person. 125 Table 11 (cont’d) The structural empowerment condition: 2) group tasks These are four issues in the HR department of Spartan Financial are currently dealing with. Instead of us making a decision for you, you (as a leader of Team Green, the HR department) are empowered to make a decision about which group task you want to work on. Issue 1) Employees at Spartan Financial report great levels of stress due to unrealistic goals set by the company. What can the company do to ensure that their employees stay stress free and mentally healthy while still encouraging them to work fast and hard? Issue 2) Spartan Financial often hires from external candidates as opposed to promoting from within but external hires often find it difficult to adjust to the new environment (i.e., learning company norms, socializing, organizational politics, etc.). What can the company do to help employees from the outside successfully adjust? Issue 3) Spartan Financial heavily relies on employees with high capability, knowledge, and skills. Spartan Financial struggles when these employees leave the company unexpectedly. What can the company do to help ensure that they retain high-performing individuals? Issue 4) Employees in Spartan Financial report high levels of work–family conflict (when work demands, time pressures, and strain from the work domain hinder the ability to fulfill responsibilities in the family domain). What can the company do for employees to prosper in both the work and family domains? You and your group members will be asked to discuss the issue you choose in a chat room and submit a group report. The structural empowerment condition: 3) reward allocation If your group report is selected by Spartan Financial, your group will receive a $10 bonus. Instead of us making a decision for you, you (as a leader of Team Green, the HR department) are empowered to decide how to allocate the $10 bonus within your group after the group task. 126 Table 11 (cont’d) The no structural empowerment condition 1) Selection of group members A staff member from Spartan Financial will select the two members who you will work with for the next group task. (The same four members in the structural empowerment condition were presented) A staff member from Spartan Financial finished selecting the two employees you will work with. You will work with NH and LF for the next group task. You and your members will work together in Team Green, the HR department in the company. 2) Group tasks A staff member from Spartan Financial will make a decision on your behalf about which group task you will work on with your members. (The same four issues in the structural empowerment condition were presented) You were assigned to Issue X (The issue was randomly chosen for participants). 3) Reward allocation If your group report is selected by Spartan Financial, your group will receive a $10 bonus. A staff member from Spartan Financial will decide how the bonus will be allocated among you and the two members based upon your group's interaction history in the following chat room. 127 APPENDIX B – The Company Description (Study 1) Table 12 – The Company Description (Study 1) The company description You will write a group report as part of this study. The six participants (including you) have been assigned to two groups (Team Green and Team White). You will work with two group members in Team Green. Please read the instruction carefully. This is background information about the group task you will be conducting with your group members. We are a company called Spartan Financial. It is a medium-size firm with around 1,500 employees and $500 billion in assets. We are recognized as being one of the market leaders for their firm size, and have a reputation for bringing technological advancement to the industry. We have multiple locations throughout the United States, with headquarters on Wall Street in New York, and have recently begun to expand into overseas markets. We offer services such as investment banking, financial market research, and M&A advisory services, among others. We have three basic levels of employees below the executive level: analyst (entry level), associate banker (middle management), and banking manager (upper management). We are facing several organizational issues and we want you to lead a group discussion and write a group report later to help us find solutions for our problems. One group (three members) will be assigned to the HR department of this company. The other group (three members) will be assigned to the Business and Planning department of the company. 128 Adapted from Lee & Kim (2019) 1 = Not at all 2 = A little 3 = A moderate amount 4 = Quite a bit 5 = A great deal Cassidy & Lynn (1989) 1 = Not at all 2 = A little 3 = A moderate amount 4 = Quite a bit 5 = A great deal APPENDIX C – Complete Survey (Study 1) Table 13 – Complete Survey (Study 1) Structural Empowerment (Manipulation Check) INSTRUCTIONS: While participating in this study, to what extent were you (as the leader of Team Green, the HR department) authorized and responsible for decisions regarding the following issues/activities? 1) Selection (deciding group members) 2) Group task (deciding which issue you would address) 3) Reward allocation (bonus) 4) Goals for this task 5) Task allocation 6) Work procedures Prestige and Dominance Orientations (Manipulation Check) INSTRUCTIONS: Please rate the extent to which you feel the following statements right now. Prestige Orientation Right now, … 1) I would like to be admired for my achievements. 2) I would like to have people come to me for advice. 3) I want to be an important person. 4) I am willing to work harder if this earns me more recognition from others. Dominance Orientation Right now, … 1) I would like to give orders and get things going. 2) I think I would enjoy having authority over other people. 3) I would like to enjoy planning things and deciding what other people should do. 4) I would like to enjoy bending others to my will. 129 Table 13 (cont’d) Perception of Being Trusted INSTRUCTIONS: Before you enter the chat room with your members, please respond to each statement in reference to your experiences in participating in this study so far. 1. My organization trusted me to do what is good for the group. 2. I was trusted by my organization to make decisions that are also good for the group. 3. The management trusted me to treat others fairly. Prosocial motivation INSTRUCTIONS: Before you enter the chat room with your members, please respond to each statement in reference to your experiences in participating in this study so far. 1. I was motivated to benefit others through my work. 2. I was motivated to help others through my work. 3. I was motivated to have positive impact on others. Sense of superiority INSTRUCTIONS: Before you enter the chat room with your members, please respond to each statement in reference to your experiences in participating in this study so far. 1. I was superior to others. 2. I was more important than other people. 3. I was better than others. Proself motivation INSTRUCTIONS: Before you enter the chat room with your members, please respond to each statement in reference to your experiences in participating in this study so far. 1. I was motivated to achieve more benefits for myself regardless of the amount of benefits the others would receive. 2. I was motivated to achieve more gains for myself. 3. I was motivated to win more personal benefits. Adapted from Brockner et al. (1997) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Adapted from Grant (2008) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Adapted from Kernis et al. (1997) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Adapted from Beersma & De Dreu (2002) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree 130 Table 13 (cont’d) Psychological Empowerment: INSTRUCTIONS: Before you enter the chat room with your members, please respond to each statement in reference to your experiences in participating in this study so far. 1) My task was important to me. 2) My task was personally meaningful to me. 3) My task was meaningful to me. 4) I was confident about my ability to do my task. 5) I was self-assured about my capabilities to perform my task activities. 6) I had the skills necessary for my task. 7) I had significant autonomy in determining how I did my task. 8) I could decide on my own how to go about doing my work. 9) I had considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I did my work. 10) My impact on what happened in my team would be large. 11) I had a great deal of control over what would happen in my team. 12) I had significant influence over what would happen in my team. Psychological Entitlement: INSTRUCTIONS: Before you enter the chat room with your members, please respond to each statement in reference to your experiences in participating in this study so far. 1) I honestly felt I was just more deserving than others. 2) I felt that great things should come to me. 3) I felt that if I were on the Titanic, I would deserve to be on the first life boat! 4) I demanded the best because I was worth it. 5) I deserved special treatment. 6) I deserved more things in my life. 7) I felt that people like me deserved an extra break now and then. 8) I felt that things should go my way. 9) I felt entitled to more of everything. Spreitzer (1995) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Campbell et al. (2004) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree 131 Adapted from Hays & Blader (2017) Adapted from Hays & Blader (2017) Table 13 (cont’d) External resource sharing with other groups in the organization Emergency note: Unfortunately, two group members in Team White (i.e., the Business and Planning Department) dropped out due to unforeseen circumstances (it seems that they had connection issues). Thus, the leader of Team White is working alone. Would you like to share one of your group members with the leader so that the leader can work with one other person? If you share, you will have one member remaining in your group. 1- Yes, I would like to share one of my group members. 0- No, I don't want to share one of my group members. External resource acquisition from upper-level management Before you enter the chat room, please answer the following question. As noted previously, if your group report is selected by the company (i.e., Spartan Financial), your group will receive $10 bonus. Although Spartan Financial is suffering from recent financial difficulties, do you believe that you deserve more than the $10 bonus if your group report is selected as a winner? 1- Yes, I would like to increase the bonus. 0- No, I don't want to ask for a higher bonus. 132 Adapted from Lee & Kim (2020) 1 = Not at all 2 = A little 3 = A moderate amount 4 = Quite a bit 5 = A great deal APPENDIX D – Complete Survey (Study 2) Table 14 – Complete Survey (Study 2) Structural Empowerment INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please respond to each statement regarding your group manager. Over the past three months, to what extent was this group manager authorized and responsible for decisions regarding the following group issues/activities: 1) workload. 2) work methods. 3) work pace. 4) working hours. 5) task allocation. 6) job rotation. 7) training. 8) selection (or hiring) 9) rewards (or incentives). 10) performance appraisals. 11) use of technology (or equipment). 12) information sharing. 13) strategy, goals, or mission. 133 Cassidy & Lynn (1989) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree (R) = Reverse-coded Table 14 (cont’d) Prestige and Dominance Orientations INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. Prestige Orientation 1) I would like an important job where people looked up to me 2) I like talking to people who are important 3) I like to be admired for my achievements 4) I like to have people come to me for advice 5) I find satisfaction in having influence over others because of my position in the community 6) I want to be an important person in the community 7) I like being the centre of attention Dominance Orientation 1) I think I would enjoy having authority over other people 2) If given the chance I would make a good leader of people 3) I enjoy planning things and deciding what other people should do 4) I like to give orders and get things going 5) People take notice of what I say 6) When a group I belong to plans an activity I would rather direct it myself than just help out and have someone else organize it 7) I think I am usually a leader in my group 134 Spreitzer (1995) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Campbell et al. (2004) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Table 14 (cont’d) Psychological Empowerment: INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. Over the past three months, … 1) The work I did was very important to me. 2) My job activities were personally meaningful to me. 3) The work I did was meaningful to me. 4) I was confident about my ability to do my job. 5) I was self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities. 6) I had mastered the skills necessary for my job. 7) I had significant autonomy in determining how I did my job. 8) I could decide on my own how to go about doing my work. 9) I had considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I did my job. 10) My impact on what happened in my department was large. 11) I had a great deal of control over what happened in my organization. 12) I had significant influence over what happened in my organization. Psychological Entitlement: INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. Over the past three months, … 1) I honestly felt I was just more deserving than others. 2) I felt that great things should come to me. 3) I felt that if I were on the Titanic, I would deserve to be on the first life boat! 4) I demanded the best because I was worth it. 5) I deserved special treatment. 6) I deserved more things in my life. 7) I felt that people like me deserved an extra break now and then. 8) I felt that things should go my way. 9) I felt entitled to more of everything. 135 Adapted from Faraj & Yan (2009) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Adapted from Faraj & Yan (2009) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Table 14 (cont’d) Resource Scarcity in Other Work Groups INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. Note: Resource is defined as a set of resources necessary for surviving and performing group tasks, including financial resources, personnel, technology (or equipment), and knowledge. - Other work groups refer to teams, units, or departments that are outside your immediate work group. Over the past three months, … 1) Other work groups found it critical to preserve and stretch their available resources to accomplish their tasks. 2) Other work groups had to carry out its tasks under serious resource constraints. 3) Other work groups experienced an ongoing need for additional resources to get their job done. Resource Scarcity in My Work Group INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. Note: Resource is defined as a set of resources necessary for surviving and performing group tasks, including financial resources, personnel, technology (or equipment), and knowledge. - My work group refers to the individuals and/or units that you are responsible for directly managing and supervising (the manager's immediate work group). Over the past three months, … 1) My work group found it critical to preserve and stretch its available resources to accomplish its task. 2) My work group had to carry out its tasks under serious resource constraints. 3) My work group experienced an ongoing need for additional resources to get its job done. 136 Adapted from Tsai & Ghoshal (1998) 1 = Not at all 2 = A little 3 = A moderate amount 4 = Quite a bit 5 = A great deal Adapted from Marrone et al. (2007) 1 = Not at all 2 = A little 3 = A moderate amount 4 = Quite a bit 5 = A great deal Table 14 (cont’d) External Resource Sharing: INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please respond to each statement regarding your engagement in the following behaviors. Note: Resource is defined as a set of resources necessary for surviving and performing group tasks, including financial resources, personnel, technology (or equipment), and knowledge. Over the past three months, to what extent did I … 1) … frequently share important resources with other work groups. 2) … offer resources to other work groups. 3) … have members of my work group sent to other groups to temporarily help them. 4) … do a special duty to stand behind in time of trouble by sharing resources with other work groups. External Resource Acquisition: INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please respond to each statement regarding your engagement in the following behaviors. Note: Resource is defined as a set of resources necessary for surviving and performing group tasks, including financial resources, personnel, technology (or equipment), and knowledge. Over the past three months, to what extent did I… 1) … persuade upper-level management to provide resources for my work group 2) … reach out to upper-level management about providing resources to my work group 3) … proactively seek resources from upper-level management 4) … acquire resources for my work group from upper-level management 137 Adapted from Janssen et al. (1999) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Adapted from Janssen et al. (1999) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Table 14 (cont’d) Intergroup Outcome Interdependence INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. - My work group refers to the individuals and/or units that you are responsible for directly managing and supervising (the manager's immediate work group). - Other work groups refer to teams, units, or departments that are outside your immediate work group. Over the past three months, … 1) Goal attainment by other work groups facilitated goal attainment in my work group 2) Goal attainment by my work group facilitated goal attainment in other work groups 3) Success for other work groups implied success for my work group. 4) Success for my group implied success for other work groups 5) Benefits for other work groups involved benefits for my work group. 6) Benefits for my work group involved benefits for other work groups. 7) Gain for other work groups meant gains for my work group. 8) Gain for my work group meant gains for other work groups. Intragroup Outcome Interdependence INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. - My work group refers to the individuals and/or units that you are responsible for directly managing and supervising (the manager's immediate work group). Over the past three months, … 1) Goal attainment for my work group facilitated goal attainment for me. 2) Goal attainment for mine facilitated goal attainment for my work group. 3) My work group’s success implied success for me. 4) My success implied success for my work group. 5) Benefits for my work group involved benefits for me. 6) Benefits for me involved benefits for my work group. 7) Gains for my work group meant gains for me. 8) Gains for me meant gains for my work group. 138 Table 14 (cont’d) Perceived Organizational Support INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. Over the past three months, 1) My organization valued my contribution to its well-being. 2) My organization strongly considered my goals and values. 3) My organization really cared about my wellbeing. 4) My organization took pride in my accomplishments. 5) My organization was willing to help me if I needed a special favor. 6) My organization showed little concern for me. (R) Group Performance INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please respond to each statement regarding the performance of the manager’s work group. Over the past three months, how well did this work group perform with regards to … 1) Efficiency. 2) Quality. 3) Overall achievement. 4) Productivity. 5) Mission fulfillment. 139 APPENDIX E – Survey Items for the Revised Model (Study 2) Table 15 – Survey Items for the Revised Model (Study 2) Abusive Supervision INSTRUCTIONS: Please rate the extent to which the manager engaged in the following behaviors over the past three months. This manager, ... Over the past three months this manager, … 1) Ridiculed subordinates 2) Told subordinates their thoughts or feelings are stupid 3) Put subordinates down in front of others 4) Made negative comments about subordinates to others 5) Told subordinates that they are incompetent External Resource Acquisition INSTRUCTIONS: Please rate the extent to which the manager engaged in the following behaviors toward upper-level management over the past three months. This manager, ... 1) Persuaded upper-level management to provide resources for his or her work group 2) Reached out to upper-level management about providing resources to his or her work group 3) Proactively sought resources from upper-level management 4) Acquired resources for his or her work group from upper-level management Group Innovation INSTRUCTIONS: Over the past three months, how well did the manager's work group produce innovative outcomes in each of the following job areas? 1) Work objectives 2) Working methods 3) Work strategies 4) Development of skills Mitchell & Ambrose (2007) 1 = Not at all 2 = A little 3 = A moderate amount 4 = Quite a bit 5 = A great deal Adapted from Marrone et al. (2007) 1 = Not at all 2 = A little 3 = A moderate amount 4 = Quite a bit 5 = A great deal Lee et al. (2019) 1 = Far below average 2 = A little below average 3 = Average 4 = A little above average 5 = Far above average 140 Table 15 (cont’d) LMX INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. 1) I usually know where I stand with my supervisor 2) My supervisor understands my problems and needs well enough 3) Regardless of how much power my supervisor has built, my supervisor would be inclined to use his/her power to help me solve problems at work. 4) I can count on my supervisor to “bail me out” at his/her expense when I really need it 5) I have enough confidence in my supervisor to defend and justify his/her decisions when management is not present to do so 6) My working relationship with my supervisor is effective 7) My supervisor recognizes my potential Job Autonomy INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. 1) The job allows me to make my own decisions about how to schedule my work. 2) The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out the work. 3) The job allows me to make decisions about what methods I use to complete my work. Innovative Climate INSTRUCTIONS: Using the response scale provided, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement. 1) Innovation is an underlying culture and not just a word. 2) We have an innovation vision that is aligned with projects, platforms, or initiatives. 3) This organization’s management team is diverse in their thinking in that they have different views as to how things should be done. 4) There is a coherent set of innovation goals and objectives that have been articulated. 5) Innovation is a core value in this organization. Scandura & Graen (1984) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Morgeson & Humphrey (2006) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Dobni (2008) 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree 141 REFERENCES 142 REFERENCES Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19, 586-592. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43-68. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Aime, F., Humphrey, S., DeRue, D. S., & Paul, J. B. (2014). The riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 327-352. Anastasio, P. A., & Rose, K. C. (2014). Beyond deserving more: Psychological entitlement also predicts negative attitudes toward personally relevant out-groups. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 593-600. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 634-665. Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362-1377. Ayala Calvo, J. C., & García, G. M. (2018). Hardiness as moderator of the relationship between structural and psychological empowerment on burnout in middle managers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91, 362-384. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect in multilevel models: new procedures and effects and moderated mediation recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142-163. Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274-289. Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: Effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 227-252. 143 Bendahan, S., Zehnder, C., Pralong, F. P., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone. Leadership Quarterly, 26,101–122. Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 615-633. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Bobocel, D. R. (2013). Coping with unfair events constructively or destructively: The effects of overall justice and self–other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 720-731. Bourgeois III, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management review, 6(1), 29-39. Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Boyd, R. & Richerson, P.J. (2009). Culture and the evolution of human cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 3281–3288. Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558-583. Brouer, R. L., Wallace, A. S., & Harvey, P. (2011). When good resources go bad: The applicability of conservation of resource theory to psychologically entitled employees. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, 4, 109–150. Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1663-1676. Burke, W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastra & Associates (Eds.), Executive power (pp. 51-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burpitt, W. J., & Bigoness, W. J. 1997. Leadership and innovation among teams: The impact of empowerment. Small Group Research, 28, 414-423. Buss, D. M. (2009a). An evolutionary formulation of person–situation interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 241-242. Buss, D. M. (2009b). The multiple adaptive problems solved by human aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 271-272. Buss, D. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. 144 Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982-1026). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Human aggression in evolutionary psychological perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 605-619. Byrne, R. W. (1995). The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-847. Case, C. R., Bae, K. K., & Maner, J. K. (2018). To lead or to be liked: When prestige-oriented leaders prioritize popularity over performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 657-676. Case, C. R., & Maner, J. K. (2014). Divide and conquer: When and why leaders undermine the cohesive fabric of their group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 1033- 1050. Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 301– 312. Chase, I. D., Tovey, C., Spangler-Martin, D., & Manfredonia, M. (2002). Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal dominance hierarchies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 5744–5749. Chelladurai, P. (1985). Sport management: Macro perspectives. London, ON: Sports Dynamics. Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331-346. Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: a team-level individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and look at new empowerment climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 202-212. Cheng, J. T., Kornienko, O., & Granger, D. A. (2018). Prestige in a large-scale social group predicts longitudinal changes in testosterone. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 924- 944 145 Cheng, J. T.,& Tracy, J. L. (2014). Toward a unified science of hierarchy: Dominance and prestige are two fundamental pathways to human social rank. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy&C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 3–27). New York, NY: Springer New York. Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 103-125. Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334–347. Child, J., & McGrath, R. G. (2001). Organizations unfettered: Organizational form in an information-intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1135-1148. Choi, J. N. (2002). External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33, 181-208. Chong, S., Kim, Y. J., Lee, H. W., Johnson, R. E., & Lin, S. H. J. (2020). Mind your own break! The interactive effect of workday respite activities and mindfulness on employee outcomes via affective linkages. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Forthcoming. Clutton-Brock, T. (2002). Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science, 296, 69-72. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501-528. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482. Cooper, W. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218-244. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2(4), 169-187. Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590. De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628-638. 146 De Dreu, C. K., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 913-926. De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360-390. Dobni, C. B. (2008). Measuring innovation culture in organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11, 1460-1060. Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435-457. Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 499-521. Dunbar, R. I. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews, 6, 178-190. Earley, P. C. (1999). Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relation to collective efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 192- 212. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430-457. Erez, M. & Arad, R. (1986). Participative goalsetting: Social, motivational, and cognitive factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 591-597. Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305-323. Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2004). Too proud to let go: narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 894-912. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological methods, 4(3), 272-299. Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604-617. 147 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. Flack, J. C., Girvan, M., De Waal, F. B., & Krakauer, D. C. (2006). Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature, 439, 426-429. Fessler, D. M., Pillsworth, E. G., & Flamson, T. J. (2004). Angry men and disgusted women: An evolutionary approach to the influence of emotions on risk taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 107-123. Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149–190). New York: Academic Press. Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., Vasquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., King, J. E., & Jacobs, W. J. (2005). Evolutionary personality psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 851–877). Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley. Forbes (2011, December 16). Why every manager should think and act like a CEO. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/infosys/2011/12/16/business-leadership-bte/#41f4446b5102 Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450-1466. Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. 2011. The impact of motivation, empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64, 315-350. Giammanco, M., Tabacchi, G., Giammanco, S., Di Majo, D., & La Guardia, M. (2005). Testosterone and aggressiveness. Medical Science Monitor, 11, RA136-RA145. Gibson, C. B., & Dibble, R. (2013). Excess may do harm: Investigating the effect of team external environment on external activities in teams. Organization Science, 24, 697-715. Gilbert, P., Price, J., & Allan, S. (1995). Social comparison, social attractiveness and evolution: How might they be related?. New Ideas in Psychology, 13, 149-165. Gillet, J., Cartwright, E., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Selfish or servant leadership? Evolutionary predictions on leadership personalities in coordination games. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 231-236. Gómez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial trust and employee empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 26, 53-69. Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417. 148 Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48–58. Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 458-476. Griffin, M. A., & Mathieu, J. E. (1997). Modeling organizational processes across hierarchical levels: Climate, leadership, and group process in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 731-744. Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 63–67. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2011). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: a life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1015-1026. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Gangestad, S. W., Perea, E. F., Shapiro, J. R., & Kenrick, D. T. (2009). Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 980–994. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 392-404. Grubbs, J. B., Exline, J. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). I deserve better and god knows it! Psychological entitlement as a robust predictor of anger at God. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 192-200. Guinote, A. (2007). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1076- 1087. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hales, C. P. (1986). What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 23, 88-115. Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402-1413. 149 Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2009). An empirical examination of the role of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 459- 476. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. New York: The Guildford Press. Hays, N. A., & Blader, S. L. (2017). To give or not to give? Interactive effects of status and legitimacy on generosity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 17-22. Hecht, M. A., & LaFrance, M. (1998). License or obligation to smile: The effect of power and sex on amount and type of smiling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1332-1342. Heckscher, C., & Donnellon, A. (Eds.). (1994). The post-bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hendry, J. (2006). Educating managers for post-bureaucracy: The role of the humanities. Management learning, 37, 267-281. Henrich, J. (2004). Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53, 3-35. Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165-196. Hill, S. E., Rodeheffer, C. D., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K., & White, A. E. (2012). Boosting beauty in an economic decline: mating, spending, and the lipstick effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 275-291. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. London: Crooke. Hochwarter, W. A., Summers, J. K., Thompson, K. W., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Strain reactions to perceived entitlement behavior by others as a contextual stressor: Moderating role of political skill in three samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 388-398. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504. Huang, J. L., Ryan, A. M., Zabel, K. L., & Palmer, A. (2014). Personality and adaptive performance at work: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 162- 179. 150 Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-672. IRIS. (2017, April 10). 5 tactics to becoming an empowered leader. Retrieved from https://www.iris.xyz/leadership/5-tactics-becoming-empowered-leader Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25, 117-141. Johnson, R. T., Burk, J. A., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). Dominance and prestige as differential predictors of aggression and testosterone levels in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 345-351. Johnson, P., Wood, G., Brewster, C., & Brookes, M. (2009). The rise of post-bureaucracy: Theorists' fancy or organizational praxis?. International sociology, 24, 37-61. Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63, 96–110. Kanter, R. (1993). Men and Women of the Corporation (2nd ed.). Basic Book, New York, NY. Karckle, W. H. (1978). Force and persuasion: leadership in an Amazonian society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Leadership and empowerment: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 48, 127-146. Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17, 22-44. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284. Kenrick, D. T., Maner, J., & Li, N. P. (2005). Evolutionary social psychology: From selfish genes to collective selves. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology handbook. New York: Wiley. Kernis, M. H., Greenier, K. D., Herlocker, C. E., Whisenhunt, C. R., & Abend, T. A. (1997). Self- perceptions of reactions to doing well or poorly: The roles of stability and level of self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 845-854. Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 62-82. 151 King, A. J., Johnson, D. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2009). The origins and evolution of leadership. Current Biology, 19, R911-R916. Knol, J., & Van Linge, R. (2009). Innovative behaviour: The effect of structural and psychological empowerment on nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, 359-370. Koole, S. L., & Lakens, D. (2012). Rewarding replications: A sure and simple way to improve psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 608-614. Kouchaki, M., & Desai, S. D. (2015). Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: How anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit unethical acts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 360-375. Lam, C. F., Wan, W. H., & Roussin, C. J. (2016). Going the extra mile and feeling energized: An enrichment perspective of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 379-391. Lanaj, K., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Barnes, C. M., & Harmon, S. J. (2013). The double- edged sword of decentralized planning in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 735-757. Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J.E., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behaviors, 24, 527–545. Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2001). Impact of structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: expanding Kanter’s model. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 31, 260-272. Lawler, E. E., III (1973) Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Benson, G. (2001). Organizing for high performance: Employee involvement, TQM, reengineering, and knowledge management in the Fortune 1000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 1-47. Lee, H. W., Bradburn, J., Johnson, R. E., Lin, S. H. J., & Chang, C. H. D. (2019). The benefits of receiving gratitude for helpers: A daily investigation of proactive and reactive helping at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 197-213. Lee, H. W., Choi, J. N., & Kim, S. (2018). Does gender diversity help teams constructively manage status conflict? An evolutionary perspective of status conflict, team psychological safety, and team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 187-199. Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 35-58. 152 Lee, H. W., Hays, N., & Johnson, R. (2020). To thine own (empowered) self be true: Aligning social hierarchy motivation and leader behavior. Working manuscript. Lee, H. W., & Kim, E. (2020). Diversity and firm performance: Relational coordination as a mediator and structural empowerment and multisource feedback as moderators. Human Resource Management, 59, 5-23. Lee, H. W., Pak, J., Kim, S. & Li, L. (2019). Effects of human resource management systems on employee proactivity and group innovation. Journal of Management, 45, 819-846. Lee, M., Pitesa, M., Pillutla, M. M., & Thau, S. (2017). Male immorality: An evolutionary account of sex differences in unethical negotiation behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 2014-2044. Lee, J., & Wei, F. (2011). The mediating effect of psychological empowerment on the relationship between participative goal setting and team outcomes–a study in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 279-295. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 269-299. Li, N. P., van Vugt, M., & Colarelli, S. M. (2018). The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 38- 44. Liao, C., Lee, H. W., Johnson, R., & Lin, S. (2020). Serving you depletes me? A leader-centric examination of servant leadership behaviors. Journal of Management. Forthcoming. Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to eye? Management and employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on service quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 371–391. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407-416. Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill. Logan, M. S., & Ganster, D. C. (2007). The effects of empowerment on attitudes and performance: The role of social support and empowerment beliefs. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1523-1550. Loi, T. I., Kuhn, K. M., Sahaym, A., Butterfield, K. D., & Tripp, T. M. (2020). From helping hands to harmful acts: When and how employee volunteering promotes workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology. Forthcoming. 153 Lord, R. G., Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2017). Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 434- 451. Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta- analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43, 1940-1965. Magee, J. C., & Langner, C. A. (2008). How personalized and socialized power motivation facilitate antisocial and prosocial decision-making. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1547-1559. Maner, J. K. (2016). Evolved social motives: When knowing about the past provides a window onto the present. Advances in Motivation Science, 3, 113-147. Maner, J. K., & Case, C. R. (2016). Dominance and prestige: Dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 129-180. Academic Press. Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T., Hofer, B., et al. (2005). Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 63–78. Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 482-497. Marlin, D., & Geiger, S. W. (2015). A reexamination of the organizational slack and innovation relationship. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2683-2690. Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423-1439. Martin, C. A., & Bush, A. J. (2006). Psychological climate, empowerment, leadership style, and customer-oriented selling: an analysis of the sales manager–salesperson dyad. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 419-438. Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1982). Learned helplessness: An alternative explanation for performance deficits. Academy of Management Review, 7, 195-204. Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38, 1231-1281. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59. McAndrew, F. T. (2002). New evolutionary perspectives on altruism: Multilevel-selection and costly-signaling theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 79-82. 154 Mead, N. L., & Maner, J. K. (2012). On keeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 576- 591. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437-455. Merton, R. K. (1958). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Miller, T. Q., Jenkins, C. D., Kaplan, G. A., & Salonen, J. T. (1995). Are all hostility scales alike? Factor structure and covariation among measures of hostility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1142–1168. Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: Organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of Management Review, 28, 143- 153. Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159- 1168. Moenaert, R. K., Deschoolmeester, D., De Meyer, A., & Barbé, J. (1990). Organizational strategy and resource allocation for technological turnaround. R&D Management, 20, 291-303. Moeller, S. J., Crocker, J., & Bushman, B. J. (2009). Creating hostility and conflict: Effects of entitlement and self-image goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 448-452. Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 399-406. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author. Naumann, S. E., Minsky, B. D., & Sturman, M. C. (2002). The use of the concept “entitlement” in management literature: A historical review, synthesis, and discussion of compensation policy implications. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 145-166. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622-631. 155 Newman, D. A. (2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 328-362. Nicholson, N. (2010). The design of work—An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 422-431. Nicholson, N. (2012). The evolution of business and management. In S. C. Roberts (Ed.), Applied Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 16–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nielsen, T. M., Bachrach, D. G., Sundstrom, E., & Halfhill, T. R. (2012). Utility of OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior and group performance in a resource allocation framework. Journal of Management, 38, 668-694. Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1245-1264. Nonaka, I. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management: Accelerating information creation, Sloan Management Review, 29, 9-18. O’Leary-Kelly, A., Rosen, C. C., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2017). Who is deserving and who decides: Entitlement as a work-situated phenomenon. Academy of Management Review, 42, 417-436. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872. Pak, J., & Kim, S. (2018). Team manager’s implementation, high performance work systems intensity, and performance: a multilevel investigation. Journal of Management, 44, 2690- 2715. Park, J., Chae, H., & Choi, J. N. (2017). The need for status as a hidden motive of knowledge- sharing behavior: An application of costly signaling theory. Human Performance, 30, 21-37. Parker, L. E., & Price, R. H. (1994). Empowered managers and empowered workers: The effects of managerial support and managerial perceived control on workers' sense of control over decision making. Human Relations, 47, 911-928. Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 4086-4091. Pitesa, M., & Thau, S. (2013). Masters of the universe: How power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 550-558. Pitesa, M., & Thau, S. (2018). Resource scarcity, effort, and performance in physically demanding jobs: An evolutionary explanation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 237-248. 156 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227. Prediger, S., Vollan, B., & Herrmann, B. (2014). Resource scarcity and antisocial behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 119, 1-9. Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Folger, R. (2014). Abusive supervision climate: A multiple-mediation model of its impact on group outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1513-1534. Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., & Hinings, C. R. (1969). An empirical taxonomy of structures of work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 115-126. Rapp, T. L., Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Ruddy, T. (2016). Leading empowered teams: An examination of the role of external team leaders and team coaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 109-123. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902. Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., Foster, J. D., & Martinez, M. A. (2008). Effects of narcissistic entitlement and exploitativeness on human physical aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 865-875. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336-353. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Roberts S. C. (2012). Applied evolutionary psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rose, K. C., & Anastasio, P. A. (2014). Entitlement is about ‘others’, narcissism is not: Relations to sociotropic and autonomous interpersonal styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 50-53. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428- 436. 157 Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-1030. Schaubroeck, J. M., Shen, Y., & Chong, S. (2017). A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 203-214. Schilpzand, P., Houston, L., & Cho, J. (2018). Not too tired to be proactive: Daily empowering leadership spurs next-morning employee proactivity as moderated by nightly sleep quality. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 2367-2387. Schmid, P. C., & Schmid Mast, M. (2013). Power increases performance in a social evaluation situation as a result of decreased stress responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 201-211. Schmidt, F. L. (1971). The relative efficiency of regression in simple unit predictor weights in applied differential psychology. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 699- 14. Schwab, D. B. (2005). Research Methods for Organizational Studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332-349. Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981-1003. Seuntjens, T. G., Zeelenberg, M., Van de Ven, N., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2015). Dispositional greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 917-933. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476. Siu, H.M., Laschinger, H.K.S. and Vingilis, E. (2005) The effect of problem-based learning on nursing students’ perceptions of empowerment, Journal of Nursing Education, 44, 459–470. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Spisak, B. R.,Nicholson, N., & Van Vugt,M. (2011). Leadership in organizations: An evolutionary perspective. In G. Saad (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology in business sciences (pp. 165–190). Heidelberg: Springer Spisak, B. R., O'Brien, M. J., Nicholson, N., & van Vugt, M. (2015). Niche construction and the evolution of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 40, 291-306. 158 Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465. Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504. Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 2, 54-72. Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 511-526. Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. (1996). Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 237-261. Stewart, G. L., Astrove, S. L., Reeves, C. J., Crawford, E. R., & Solimeo, S. L. (2017). Those with the most find it hardest to share: Exploring leader resistance to the implementation of team- based empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 2266-2293. Sun, L.-Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 558-577. Sun, L. Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 55-65. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough?. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 2-24. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton. Tett, G. (2009). Fool’s Gold. New York: Free Press. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666-681. Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 285–342. Tomasello, M., Melis, A. P., Tennie, C., Wyman, E., Herrmann, E., Gilby, I. C., ... & Melis, A. (2012). Two key steps in the evolution of human cooperation: The interdependence hypothesis. Current Anthropology, 53, 673-692. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464-476. 159 Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547. Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management, 23, 124-143. Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 354-371. Van Vugt, M., & Grabo, A. E. (2015). The many faces of leadership: An evolutionary-psychology approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 484-489. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182-196. Van Vugt, M., & Schaller, M. (2008). Evolutionary approaches to group dynamics: An introduction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 1-6. Verdú, A. J., & Gómez-Gras, J. M. (2009). Measuring the organizational responsiveness through managerial flexibility. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22, 668-690. Vincent, L. C., & Kouchaki, M. (2016). Creative, rare, entitled, and dishonest: How commonality of creativity in one’s group decreases an individual’s entitlement and dishonesty. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1451-1473. Volberda, H. W. (1996). Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7, 359-374. Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-180. Wageman, R., & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 139-158. Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and psychological empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt accountability: A managerial perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 840-850. Wang, L., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). On greed. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 279-316. Weber, Max. (1946). From Max Weber. H. H. Gerth (translator) and C. Wright Mills (Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309-333). Chichester, UK: Wiley. 160 Whiten, A. (1999). The evolution of deep social mind in humans. In M. C. Corballis & S. E. G. Lea (Eds.), The descent of mind: Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution (pp. 173– 193). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74, 23-43. Wilson, D. S., Van Vugt, M., & O'Gorman, R. (2008). Multilevel selection theory and major evolutionary transitions: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 6-9. Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (2008). Evolution" for the Good of the Group": The process known as group selection was once accepted unthinkingly, then was widely discredited; it's time for a more discriminating assessment. American Scientist, 96, 380-389. Yam, K. C., Klotz, A. C., He, W., & Reynolds, S. J. (2017). From good soldiers to psychologically entitled: Examining when and why citizenship behavior leads to deviance. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 373-396. Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 66-85. Zahavi, A. (1977). Reliability in communication systems and the evolution of altruism. In B. Stonehouse & C.M. Perrins (Eds.), Evolutionary ecology (pp. 253–259). London: MacMillan Press. Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 538- 566. Zitek, E. M., Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Leach, F. R. (2010). Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 245-255. 161