Leadership has a variety of outcomes, and follower satisfaction is one. Because followers are so critical to the success of contemporary organisations, their satisfaction is both a vital process measure for an organisation, as well as a result in itself.
Hence, this article further explores how best to deal with the antecedents of petty leadership and the effects of increased psychological distress of pettiness on employees/subordinates.
It should be noted that the term “institutionalised values and norms” suggests that organisations sometimes facilitate the emergence of petty leadership rather than that they actively promote pettiness per se.
Except for few organisations condone the arbitrary and abusive use of authority inherent in the notion of petty leadership.
At a micro-level factor, individuals who perceive that they are relatively powerless often lord whatever power they have and put a certain “psychological distance” between themselves and subordinates or others dependent on them.
In this instance, powerlessness is defined broadly as an absence of the necessary means, the skills, authority, credibility, autonomy, opportunities for participation, resources to cope with tasks, demands and influence events that directly affect one.
Considering the arguments for low and high power simultaneously, it appears that petty behaviour is associated with hierarchical power distance in a layered function, such that petty leaders tend to be lowest for moderate control
This lording and distancing serve several purposes: 1. given relatively low power, the individual believes that milder forms of influence will not suffice; 2. lording and distancing enhance self-perception of superiority and self-efficacy, and 3. distancing affirms the legitimacy of hierarchical control and justifies its use.
Over-control, in short, becomes a tonic for the relatively powerless. Thus, supervisors with low power in a bureaucratic setting are more likely to play favourites and exhibit close and controlling leadership.
In contrast, petty leaders from various organisations are perceived by subordinates to have less influence over subordinates and individuals and issues outside the department.
Ironically, the opposite conditions may also engender pettiness. Behavioural science experts have argued that the acquisition and successful use of power tends to corrupt the power-holder in several respects: power becomes an end in itself; the power-holder develops an exalted sense of self-worth; power is used increasingly for personal rather than organisational purposes, and the power-holder devalues the worth of others.
The greater the power differential and the stronger and more controlling the means of influence (for example, rewards, coercion), the more inclined is the leader to attribute subordinates’ successes to managerial control rather than to the subordinates themselves, and the less inclined are subordinates to openly question the leader.
Consequently, the leader comes to believe that they can do no wrong, that the same constraints should not bind them as others, and that subordinates must be closely supervised. Thus, the greater one’s power, the more assertive and demanding one tends to become.
In an experimental simulation of a prison environment, the researchers randomly assigned subjects to the role of either guard or prisoner.
During the six-day simulation, the researchers found that the “guards” began harassing and degrading the “prisoners” even after most prisoners had ceased resisting, and prisoner deterioration had become visibly apparent to them.
They appeared to experience this sense of power as “exhilarating.” Nevertheless, it should be noted that individuals do appear to differ in their predisposition to exercise power coercively.
Considering the arguments for low and high power simultaneously, it appears that petty behaviour is associated with hierarchical power distance in a layered function, such that petty leaders tend to be lowest for moderate control.
Following expert analysis of school-yard bullies, petty leaders may be particularly likely where one is relatively powerless with respect to one’s superiors but relatively powerful with respect to one’s subordinates; where a person compensates for the former by over-controlling the latter—a classic example of a big fish in a little pond.
Read also: How to manage petty leaders in your organisation
Finally, stressors may also contribute to petty leadership. Stressors tend to prompt more directive leadership.
– First, subordinates under stress tend to look to their managers to provide robust and task-oriented leadership. This is particularly true if the stress is caused by a crisis.
– Second, leaders tend to respond to stressors by becoming more directive.
Thus, behavioural science experts found that the subordinates of bank officers perceived more “forceful” behaviour under crisis conditions but more consultative behaviour under non-crisis conditions. This “forcefulness,” however, can become excessive.
Other research experts report that decision-making tends to become more centralised, hasty, and arbitrary under stress. It was concluded that most dictatorial leadership arise and becomes entrenched during social disorder and crisis periods.
Similarly, the literature on burnout suggests that individuals subject to chronic stressors often withdraw psychologically from others, treating them more like objects than people. Some leaders often justify this stance by avoiding taking responsibility, blaming others, and developing derogatory stereotypes.
The common expression from such leaders is “my subordinates are unable to take the initiative on their own”, and “they wait for me to do everything and tell them what to do.”
Hence, it’s been discovered that leaders experiencing emotional exhaustion tend to depersonalise their subordinates and followers. In extreme cases, some may even take perverse pleasure in abusing the subordinates using demeaning words.
Please lookout for a continuation of this article.
