Petty Tyranny in Organizations:
A Preliminary Examination of Antecedents
and Consequences
Blake E. Ashforth
Arizona State University
Abstract
Petty tyranny is defined as the tendency to lord ones
power over others. A model of the individual and situa-
tional antecedents of petty tyranny in organizations and
the effects of tyranny on subordinates is presented. The
model is assessed via 63 sets of respondents, each con-
sisting of one manager and two subordinates, plus 25
partial sets. The hypothesized effects are generally sup-
ported, but not the hypothesized antecedents. It is specu-
lated that petty tyranny represents a relatively rare
gestalt, that is, an integrated and resilient cluster of
antecedents, leader behaviours, and effects on subordi-
nates.
Consider the following:
In the three months since [the new owner of the phar-
macy] has been in charge [he] has made it clear that
he is at liberty to fire employees at will ... change
their positions, decrease their bonus percentages, and
refuse time-off and vacation choices. Furthermore,
he has established an authoritarian work structure
characterized by distrust, cut-backs on many items
deemed essential to work comfort, disrespect, rigidi-
ty and poor-to-no communication ... [He regards
employees as] potential thieves and squanderers of
work time. As a result, he consistently spies on
employees ... These changes have been so pervasive
that ... the employees no longer refer to the [pharma-
cy] as a small family but as the third Reich with
[him] in the role of Hitler. (Giarrusso, 1990, pp. 5-6)
This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (#410-88.0298). The data
were collected while the author was at Concordia University. The
author is grateful to Yongqing Fang and Jia-Lin Xie for assistance with
the data analysis; and to Gary Johns, Bruce Prince, David Waldman,
and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Address all correspondence to Blake E. Ashforth, Department of
Management, College of Business, Arizona State University, Main
Campus, P.O. Box 874006, Tempe, AZ 85287-4006, USA.
0 ASAC 1997
Rksume
On entend par petite tyrannie la tendance exercer
une domination sur les autres. Larticle prksente un
mod& des antkckdents individuels et situationnels de la
petite tyrannie dans les organisations et des effects de la
tyrannie sur les subordonnks. Le mod2le est testk a par-
tir de 63 groupes complets de rkpondants, composks
chacun dun chef de service et de deux subordonnks, et
de 25 groupes partiels. Les hypothkses likes aux effets de
la tyrannie sont gknneralement verij5ees contrairement a
celles des antkckdents. Lauteur sugg2re que la petite
tyrannie reprksente une gestalt relativement rare,
c est-a-direun ensemble intkgrk duntkckdents, de com-
portements de leader et deffets sur les subordonnks.
[Harry Figgie] can be the nicest fellow in the world
one day and totally abusive the next: Men running
$100 million divisions would come into my office
and ask if it was safe to see Harry that day
... Figgie takes no prisoners when it comes to an
insult. Hell call anyone a horses ass anywhere ._.
Headquarters was like a tomb. People were scared.
Harry chewed me out again and again and again.
Every day hed work me over. I lost 40 pounds
putting in six days a week until ten oclock every
night, never sure Id have a job in the morning.
(Nulty, 1989, p. 41)
Petty tyrant is a colloquial term that is often used
to describe such managers. It suggests someone who
uses their power and authority oppressively, capricious-
ly, and perhaps vindictively. It suggests, in short, some-
one who lords their power over others.
The management, social psychological, and politi-
cal science literatures have yielded constructs similar to
this notion of petty tyranny, such as the authoritarian per-
sonality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, &
Sanford, 1950), bureaupathic individual (Thompson,
1961), and dictator (Rubin, 1987). Recurring themes
include close and coercive supervision, an emphasis on
authority and status differences, arbitrary actions, severe
and punitive treatment of subordinates, and deterrence of
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
126 4 ( 2 ) . 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS
subordinates initiative and dissent. These themes sug-
gest a tendency to overcontrol others and to treat them in
an arbitrary, uncaring, and punitive manner. However,
these literatures tend to be anecdotal and impressionistic.
In an attempt to provide a more coherent framework
for this eclectic literature and a basis for survey research,
I recently developed a model of petty tyranny in organi-
zations (Ashforth, 1994). As reproduced in Figure 1, the
model: (a) described petty tyranny in specific behaviour-
a1 terms, (b) proposed a set of antecedents of tyranny in
organizations, and (c) proposed a set of effects that
tyrannical management has on subordinates.
Consistent with the themes noted above, empirical
work summarized in Ashforth (1994) (see Measures,
below, for more detail) suggests that the construct of petty
tyranny is comprised of six major sets of behaviours: (a)
arbitrariness and self-aggrandizement (e.g., Uses authori-
ty or position for personal gain, Administers organiza-
tional policies unfairly), (b) belittling subordinates (e.g.,
Belittles or embarrasses subordinates, Criticizes subor-
dinates in front of others), (c) lack of consideration (e.g.,
Is friendly and approachable [reversed], Looks out for
the personal welfare of group members [reversed]), (d) a
forcing style of conflict resolution (e.g., Forces accep-
tance of his or her point of view, Demands to get his or
her way), (e) discouraging initiative (e.g., Encourages
subordinates to participate in important decisions
[reversed], Trains subordinates to take on more authority
[reversed]), and (f) noncontingent punishment (e.g., My
supervisor is often displeased with my work for no appar-
ent reason, I frequently am reprimanded by my supervi-
sor without knowing why). The adjective petty was
added to tyrant to emphasize the theme of arbitrariness
and small-mindedness that pervades these behaviours.
The purpose of the present study is to build on
Ashforth (1994) by providing an empirical assessment of
the validity of the conceptual model presented in Figure
1, utilizing the above conceptualization of petty tyrant
behaviours. Hypotheses regarding the antecedents and
effects of petty tyranny are presented below. To fore-
shadow the findings, the paper concludes by speculating
that petty tyranny may constitute a relatively rare gestalt,
that is, an integrated and coherent cluster of individual
predispositions, situational facilitators, leader behav-
iours, and effects on subordinates.
Antecedents of Petty Tyranny
The growing literature on interactionism suggests
that no individual or situational factor alone is generally
sufficient to sustain ongoing organizational behaviour
(Chatman, 1989): behaviour is a function of specific
people in specific contexts. Accordingly, the model of
127
ASHFORTH
petty tyranny maintains that certain individual predispo-
sitions interact with certain situational facilitators to fos-
ter tyranny. The individual predispositions revolve large-
ly around a managers habitual construction of the work
context (that is, enduring beliefs about the organization,
subordinates, and self), coupled with his or her habitual
action tendencies (that is, enduring ways of approaching
situations). More specifically, beliefs about the organiza-
tion are represented by bureaucratic orientation, beliefs
about subordinates by Theory X, beliefs about the self by
self-esteem, and preferences for action by directiveness
and tolerance for ambiguity.
The situational facilitators were selected to span the
macro- and micro-levels that constitute an organization
(House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995). More specif-
ically, the macro-level is represented by institutionalized
values and norms, and the micro-level by power and
stressors. These particular operationalizations of the
individual and situational factors, however, are not
intended to be exhaustive.
The first set of individual-situational interactions
involves bureaucratic orientation and Theory X beliefs in
conjunction with institutionalized values and norms.
Regarding bureaucratic orientation, Mertons (1 968)
bureaucratic personality and Thompsons ( 1 961)
bureaupathic pattern suggest a person who acts in an
overbearing, impersonal, and inflexible manner, and who
insists upon the rights of authority. This stance is captured
by Gordons (1973) measure of bureaucratic orientation
(see Allinson, 1984, for a review). High scores reflect a
willingness to comply with authority, a preference for
impersonal and formal relationships with others on the
job, a desire for strict adherence to rules and procedures,
and a need to identify with the organization and conform
to norms. Regarding Theory X beliefs, McGregor (1 960)
argues that many managers believe that the average person
dislikes work, lacks ambition, avoids responsibility,
prefers direction, and is resistant to change. McGregor
further argues that managers holding these Theory X
beliefs often utilize a close and coercive leadership style.
Bureaucratic orientation and Theory X beliefs are
particularly likely to manifest themselves in tyrannical
behaviour in organizational settings that at least tacitly
condone such behaviour. In particular, machine organi-
zations (Mintzberg, 1989) such as auto manufacturers
and post offices frequently stress efficient mass produc-
tion and thus emphasize compliance with centralized
decisions and standardized and formalized tasks.
Accordingly, managers often display close, rule-minded
supervision (Izraeli, 1975). Similarly, Kets de Vries
(1989) argues that the high centralization characteristic
of many entrepreneurial organizations (Mintzberg,
1989) often reflects the entrepreneurs strong need for
independence and control and his or her distrust of oth-
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
14(2), 126-140
-
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS ...
Figure 1.
Proposed Antecedents and Effects of Petty Tyranny.
ANTECEDENTS
Individual predispositions Situational facilitators
Beliefs about the organization Macro-level factors
Bureaucraticorientation Institutionalizedvalues
and norms
Beliefs about subordinates
Theory X
Beliefs about the self Micro-level factors
Self-esteem Power
Micro-level factors
Directiveness Stressors
I I
Note. The three ellipses reflect potential configurations of individual predispositions and situational facilitators that are likely to predict petty tyranny.
It is not argued that tyrannical behaviour fully mediates the impact of the proposed antecedents on the proposed effects. It is recognized that certain
antecedents may affect certain effects directly or through additional mediators.
ers. Thus, the institutionalized values and norms inherent
in many centralized organizations may facilitate the
emergence of tyranny. In support, Ashforth (1987) found
that tyrannical managers (i.e., those falling more than
one SD above the mean on the measure described later)
were overrepresented in machine and entrepreneurial
organizations and underrepresented in Mintzbergs
(1989) more decentralized professional and innova-
tive organizations. Hence:
H1: Managers beliefs will interact with institution-
alized values and norms such that tyrannical behav-
iour will be highest for: (a) bureaucratically oriented
managers in centralized operations and (b) Theory X
oriented managers in centralized operations.
The second individual-situational interaction
involves self-esteem and managerial power. Regarding
power, Kipnis (1976) and Kanter (1977) argue that indi-
viduals who are relatively powerless often lord what little
power they do have and put psychological distance
between themselves and others dependent on them. This
enhances self-perceptions of superiority and legitimates
tight control. Kipnis (1976) further argues that the rela-
tively powerful also often come to lord their power. The
greater the power differential, the more inclined is a man-
ager to attribute subordinates performance to managerial
control rather than to the subordinates themselves and the
ASHFORTH
I I I
PETTY TYRANNY
I I EFFECTS ON
SUBORDINATES
i i
Arbitrarinessand Low leader endorsement
self-aggrandizement High fkbation, sness,
- Belinlig subordinates and reactance
< Lack of considemtion
Forcingconflictresolution
High helplesmessand
work alienation
Dimulaginginitiaiim Low self-esteemand
Noncontingent punishment pelfOlltlaIlW
Low work-unitcohesiveness
I I
less inclined are subordinates to openly question the man-
ager. Thus, the manager comes to believe that he or she is
infallible and should not be bound by the same con-
straints as others, and that subordinates must be closely
supervised. Considering the arguments for low and high
power simultaneously, it thus appears that petty tyranny
is associated with power in a U-shaped function, such
that tyranny will tend to be lowest for moderate power.
However, this function may only apply to managers
with relatively low self-esteem. McClellands (1985)
research indicates that individuals differ in the degree to
which they are psychologically constrained from exer-
cising power in socially undesirable ways. Individuals
with low power inhibition are more likely to act tyran-
nically. Self-esteem may be one variable that affects this
felt inhibition. Individuals with low self-esteem tend to
lack confidence in their ability to influence others
(Kipnis, 1976). Accordingly, they may feel particularly
threatened by relatively low power and may feel particu-
larly attracted to the seductive qualities of relatively high
power. Thus, whether they have high or low power, they
may feel less constrained in their use of it and be more
likely to display tyrannical behaviour. Hence:
H2: Managers beliefs will interact with power such
that: (a) for managers with relatively low self-
esteem, tyrannical behaviour will be associated with
power in a U-shaped function, and (b) for managers
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
128 14(2), 126-140
-
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS
with relatively high self-esteem, tyrannical behav-
iour will not be associated with power.
The third set of individual-situational interactions
involves directiveness and tolerance for ambiguity in
conjunction with stressors. Directiveness is the tendency
to impose ones will on others (Ray, 1976), whereas tol-
erance of ambiguity is the tendency to perceive an equiv-
ocal stimulus as a threat (Budner, 1962). Individuals
intolerant of ambiguity are motivated to impose a clear
and stable order. These tendencies are particularly likely
to be activated and manifest themselves as tyrannical
behaviour during periods of high stress. In the face of
stressors, subordinates tend to look to their managers for
strong leadership; managers tend to become more direc-
tive; and decision-making tends to become more central-
ized, hasty, and arbitrary (Bass, 1990; Janis, 1982).
Individuals who are predisposed to exploit opportunities
for directiveness and to perceive a given stressor as a
potential threat are thus particularly likely to respond to
stressors with heavy-handed control. Accordingly:
H3: Managers preferences for action will interact
with stressors such that tyrannical behaviour will be
highest for: (a) high directiveness managers in the
face of high stressors and (b) low tolerance of ambi-
guity managers in the face of high stressors.
Effects of Petty Tyranny on Subordinates
Petty tyranny is argued to have five interdependent
effects on subordinates, spanning cognitive, affective,
and behavioural adjustment variables; and relations
among subordinates. First, and most obviously, tyranni-
cal behaviour is predicted to undermine leader endorse-
ment. Laboratory and field research consistently indicate
that subordinates tend to develop very negative views of
leaders who are perceived to treat them inequitably and
coercively (e.g., Bass, 1990; Hollander & Julian, 1970).
Subordinates appear to share the belief that a manager,
as their superior, ought to have their best interests at
heart (although they may not share the expectation that a
manager actually will). Arbitrariness, self-aggrandize-
ment, belittling, and other facets of tyranny clearly con-
travene this belief. Hence:
H4: Tyrannical behaviour will be negatively associ-
ated with leader endorsement.
Second, tyrannical behaviour is hypothesized to
increase frustration, stress, and reactance. Spector
(1978) defines frustration as interference with goal-ori-
ented activity, and Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning
(1986) define stress as an unpleasant emotional experi-
ence associated with fear, anxiety, and so on. Petty tyran-
ny may foster frustration and stress in several ways: arbi-
129
ASHFORTH
trariness and noncontingent punishment may impair
goal-oriented planning and provoke fear and anxiety;
belittling and withholding consideration may sow self-
doubt and inhibit action; and forcing conflict resolution
and discouraging initiative may thwart attempts to
affect tasks and the work unit. Brodsky (1976), for
example, describes how a police officer and a social
worker who were arbitrarily harassed by their superiors
experienced anger, frustration, and stress-related physi-
cal symptoms.
Reactance theory argues that people react (directly
or indirectly) against perceived causes of frustration to
restore the situation to what was expected (Brehm &
Brehm, 1981). Thus, in a study of production workers,
Ashforth (1989) found that the lower the perceived legit-
imacy of supervision, the greater the frequency of com-
plaints, bending or breaking rules, and criticizing people.
Hence:
H5: Tyrannical behaviour will be positively associat-
ed with subordinate frustration, stress, and reactance.
Third, tyrannical behaviour is argued to increase
helplessness and work alienation. Helplessness is
defined as the perception that outcomes are independent
of behaviour (Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993).
Through arbitrariness and noncontingent punishment,
petty tyrants foster unpredictability, and by discouraging
initiative and forcing conflict resolution, tyrants reduce
autonomy and opportunities for problem-solving. Work
alienation is defined as a sense of separation on the part
of the individual from work and the workplace
(Ashforth, 1989). Arbitrariness, belittling, punitiveness,
and so forth are likely to undermine a subordinates psy-
chological attachment to the job and organization. In an
experimental simulation of a prison environment, Haney,
Banks, and Zimbardo (1973) noted a pathological pris-
oner syndrome in response to guards frequent harass-
ment and capricious behaviour. This syndrome consisted
of passivity, dependency, depression, helplessness and
self-deprecation (p. 89). Thus:
H6: Tyrannical behaviour will be positively associat-
ed with subordinate helplessness and work alien-
ation.
Fourth, petty tyranny is argued to undermine subor-
dinates self-esteem and performance. Belittling may
erode ones sense of competence and self-worth; dis-
couraging initiative and forcing conflict resolution
implicitly devalue ones contributions; and withholding
consideration may reduce ones felt worth as a unique
person. Miller, Weiland, and Couch (1978) suggest that
tyrants often deliberately destroy subordinates self-
esteem so as to render them more compliant and less of
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadrninistration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
-
14(2), 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS...
Figure 2.
Analytic Strategy for the Hypothesized Antecedents and Effects of Petty Tyranny.
MANAGER
Antecedents
D SUBORDINATE 1
a potential threat. The evidence, however, is largely
anecdotal.
Regarding performance, petty tyranny may, on the
one hand, induce defensive conformity to the tyrants
wishes. On the other hand, the increasing sense of help-
lessness and work alienation may reduce intrinsic moti-
vation; the sense of frustration and reactance and the lack
of leader endorsement may provoke at least indirect defi-
ance of the tyrant; and the tyrants use of noncontingent
punishment and arbitrariness and the absence of con-
structive feedback may impair task learning. Laboratory
and field research generally suggest that coercive and
punitive supervision indeed impairs task performance
(e.g., Bennett & Cummings, 1991; Podsakoff &
Schriesheim, 1985). However, much of this research has
focused on fairly simple tasks. Thus, on balance:
H7: Tyrannical behaviour will be negatively associ-
ated with subordinate self-esteem and performance.
Finally, petty tyranny may impair work-unit cohe-
siveness. It can be argued that tyranny may encourage
subordinates to band together to form a collective defense
and to provide social support. However, Miller et al.
(1 978) counter that tyrants systematically sow distrust
among subordinates to prevent such coalitions from aris-
ing. Further, tyranny likely creates a negative climate that
impairs the development of cohesion. Once again, how-
ever, the support is largely anecdotal. Thus, on balance:
130
ASHFORTH
H8: Tyrannical behaviour will be negatively associ-
ated with work-unit cohesiveness.
As depicted in Figure 1, the model indicates that
feedback loops link the hypothesized effects of tyranny
with the hypothesized antecedents and with the behav-
iour itself. For example, Sunars (1978) work suggests
that helplessness and alienation (effects) may strengthen
negative attitudes toward subordinates (antecedents), and
Zelditch and Walkers (1984) review of experimental
research indicates that leaders encountering low
endorsement and high reactance (effects) are more like-
ly to use coercion (behaviour). However, these linkages
are not assessed in the present study because of its cross-
sectional design.
Method
Sample and Procedures
Business students enrolled in evening courses at
Concordia University were invited to participate if they
(a) were currently employed, (b) had been under their
current manager for at least five months, and (c) had at
least one co-worker who had also been under the man-
ager for at least five months.
Each participant received three questionnaires: one
for him or herself (henceforth, subordinate 1) and one
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
14(2),
- 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS
each for his or her co-worker (subordinate 2) and man-
ager. As depicted in Figure 2, the two subordinates ques-
tionnaires were identical, and included measures of man-
agerial petty tyranny and the hypothesized effects,
whereas the managers questionnaire included measures
of the hypothesized antecedents of tyranny (the arrows in
Figure 2 are explained below). To preserve confidential-
ity, each questionnaire included a postage-paid envelope
for direct mailing. To preserve anonymity, each set of
three questionnaires was identified only by a team num-
ber. Usable data were returned from 81% (88/108) of the
teams: the final sample consists of 63 complete sets (i.e.,
one manager and two subordinates) and 25 partial sets
(i.e., 12 sets with one manager and one subordinate, and
13 with two subordinates).
This procedure enabled the assessment of leadership
style across a diverse array of organizations, functional
areas, and hierarchies. Further, the use of multiple raters
(i.e., paired subordinates) addressed the potential
method variance inherent in correlating perceptions from
a single person (Wagner & Crampton, 1990) (see
Analysis, below).
Fifty-eight percent of the subordinate 1 sample were
female, and their mean age was 28.1 years (SD=7.7). As
one would expect of working students, this sample is sig-
nificantly older than the Concordia business student pop-
ulation from which it is drawn (t[1032]=4.17, pS.Ol),
but does not differ in the proportion of women
(2(1]=1.14, ns). The mean tenure of the sample under
their current manager * was 20.6 months (SD=21 S).
Seventy percent of the subordinate 2 sample were
female, and their mean age was 28.6 years (SD=7.1).
Their mean tenure under their current manager was 19.1
months (SD=19.3). Finally, 73% of the managers were
male, and their mean age was 37.8 years (SD=9.4).
Measures
Petty tyranny. The development of the petty tyranny
measure is described in Ashforth (1987, 1994). Briefly,
89 items were constructed to assess the broad domain of
tyrannical behaviour. Forty-five items were derived from
existing leadership scales, and 44 items were generated
by the author based in part on a content analysis of the
responses of 80 business students who described actual
critical incidents involving a manager they had worked
under who had lorded his or her power. A sample of
562 business students who had been or were currently
employed were then instructed to rate the behaviour of
their current or most recent supervisor on the 89-item
scale. Factor and item analyses suggested that petty
tyranny could be parsimoniously captured by the six
dimensions (rotated factors) listed earlier, encompassing
47 items. The six dimensions accounted for 59.4% of the
131
ASHFORTH
variance. Two dimensions, forcing conflict resolution
and noncontingent punishment, are in fact the Howat and
London (1 980) and Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber
(1984) measures (respectively) by the same name, both
in their entirety.
The mean correlation between the six dimensions
was .58 (pS.01). It should be noted that all 47 items
loaded 2 . 4 4 on the first factor of a principal components
analysis. Thus, while the six rotated factors speak to the
multidimensionality of the construct, the one unrotated
factor speaks to a certain coherence among the dimen-
sions. The overall petty tyranny score was calculated by
standardizing and summing the six scales derived from
the 47 items. Standardizing removed the undue weight
accorded scales with either greater variance or a greater
number of items.*
The correlation between subordinate 1s and subor-
dinate 2s assessment of managerial tyranny was .52
(p5.01). This appears comparable to the magnitude of
subordinate agreement regarding other measures of lead-
ership, such as the Leadership Behavior Description
Questionnaire (D.R. Day, cited in Bass, 1990).
Antecedents. Bureaucratic orientation was measured
with Gordons (1973) 24-itenl scale. Theory X beliefs
were assessed with the 9-item short-form of Spautzs
(1975) scale. Self-esteem was measured with
Rosenbergs (1965) 10-item scale. Directiveness was
assessed with the 14-item short-form of Rays (1976,
1980) scale. Tolerance of ambiguity was measured with
the 3-item scale by OReilly, Bretton, and Roberts
(1974).
Power was measured with a 7-item scale developed
for this study. It assesses how much influence the man-
ager has with regard to the individuals he or she super-
vises, the groups or departments with whom his or her
unit interacts most often, the immediate supervisor and
higher management in general, the individuals or units
outside the organization with whom his or her unit inter-
acts most often, and the organization in general.
Stressors were operationalized as a block variable
(Blalock, 1969) consisting of (a) role conflict, as mea-
sured by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzmans (1970) 8-item
scale, (b) role ambiguity, as measured by Rizzo et al.s
(1970) 6-item scale, and (c) role overload, as measured
by Beehr, Walsh, and Tabers (1976) 3-item scale.
Blalock recommends that the variables within a block be
moderately correlated (i.e., rr.30). The mean intercorre-
lation for the three scales was .36.
Organizational type was measured by an open-
ended description of the organization provided by the
manager. Following Ashforths (1 987) use of
Mintzbergs ( 1989) typology, organizations were coded
as either machine/entrepreneurial (i.e., as relatively cen-
tralized) or as professional/innovative (i.e., as relatively
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadrninistration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
-
14(2), 126-140
 -0

Table 1 3
4
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Hypothesized Antecedents Plus Tyranny i
<
ia
>
Intercorrelations z
2
Variable n Items Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4

~
1. Mean tyrannya 88 - 0.00 0.82 (->

Individual predispositions

2. Bureaucratic orientationb 75 24 1.23 0.28 14 (85)

3. Theory X orientation' 75 9 1.46 0.25 20* 42** (61)
4. Self-esteem 75 10 4.38 0.49 -0 1 -10 11 (82)
5. Directiveness 75 14 2.34 0.33 -02 -02 12 28* (65)
6. Tolerance of ambiguity 75 3 4.26 1.23 -31** -35"" -23" 17 27* (53)

Situational facilitators

7. Organizational typed 72 1 1.22 0.42 -02 -02 17 03 11 10 (-1

8. Power 75 7 3.53 0.74 -05 00 -06 26* 36** 09 -06 (84)
9. Role conflict 75 8 3.85 1.00 13 -18 11 03 -03 09 -01 -28** (62)
10. Role ambiguity 75 6 2.15 0.88 -18 -25* 03 -35** -08 12 01 -3.5"" 42** (78)
11. Role overload 75 3 3.56 1.27 13 -09 04 -05 02 10 -01 -13 38** 29** (54)
Note. Decimals in the correlation matrix are omitted. Estimates of internal consistency are along the diagonal. All variables are measured on 5-point Liken-type scales except the following:
a Computed by standardizing and summing the mean (between subordinates) of each of the six dimensions of tyranny.
Following Gordon (1973), the 5-point response scale was recoded such that Strongly disagree = 0, Disagree or Neither agree nor disagree = 1, and Agree or Strongly agree = 2.
Respondents complete a sentence by selecting one of two statements, where 1 = Theory Y orientation; 2 = Theory X orientation.
1 = machine or entrepreneurial organization; 2 = professional or innovative organization.
* p5.05
** p5.01
PETTY TYRANNY I N ORGANIZATIONS
decentralized). Two coders worked in tandem, dis-
cussing and resolving any differences of opinion.
Outcomes. Given the high number of hypothesized
outcome variables and the likelihood of moderate to high
correlations between many of them, Blalocks (1969)
block variable approach was again used. Following the
grouping of outcome variables in the model (see Figure
l), five block variables were formed: (a) leader endorse-
ment, (b) frustration/stress/reactance, (c) helplessness/
work alienation, (d) self-esteedperformance, and (e)
work-unit cohesiveness. The grouping of these variables
is not meant to imply that the variables within a given
group are isomorphic, but that they are phenomenologi-
cally somewhat similar to subordinates. Blalocks criteri-
on of r r . 3 0 was met for all five blocks (each significant
at ~ 5 . 0 1 )Moreover,
. with few exceptions, the intercorre-
lations among the variables within each block were
greater than the correlations with those outside the block.
Leader endorsement was operationalized by two
scales: (a) leader endorsement, as assessed by a 4-item
scale adapted from Lawler and Thompson (1978), and
(b) leader identification, as measured by an 11-item scale
by Gibbs, Ashforth, and House (1989). The mean corre-
lation between the two scales for the two subordinates
was .73.
Frustration was measured with Ashforths (1989)
2-item scale; stress was assessed with Patchens (1970)
7-item symptoms of stress scale; and reactance was mea-
sured with Ashforths (1989) 7-item scale. The mean
intercorrelation for the three scales was .45.
Helplessness was assessed with the 6-item short-
form of Ashforths (1989, 1990) scale, and work alien-
ation was operationalized using three scales: (a) organi-
zational commitment, as measured by the 15-item scale
by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) (reversed); (b) job
involvement, as measured by the 10-item scale by
Kanungo (1982) (reversed); and (c) intention to turn
over, as assessed by the 3-item scale by Seashore,
Lawler, Mirvis, and Cammann (1982). The mean inter-
correlation for the four scales was S O .
Self-esteem was measured with Rosenbergs (1965)
10-item scale, and performance was assessed with R.J.
Houses (cited in Smith, 1982) 6-item self-appraisal
scale. The mean correlation between the two scales was
.33.
Finally, work-unit cohesiveness was operationalized
by two scales: (a) social isolation, as measured by a 7-
item scale by Ashforth (1989) (reversed), and (b) group
fragmentation, as measured by the 4-item internal frag-
mentation scale by Seashore et al. (1982) (reversed). The
mean correlation between the two scales was .55.
Demographic and organizational controls. Single
items assessed respondents gender, age, education,orga-
nizational tenure, and hierarchical level. Also, subordi-
133
ASH FORTH
nates were asked how long they had been supervised by
their current manager, and managers were asked how
many employees worked for their organization (organi-
zation size) and how many subordinates reported direct-
ly to them.
The descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the
variables implicated in the hypotheses are presented in
Table 1 (hypothesized antecedents plus tyranny) and
Table 2 (hypothesized effects plus tyranny).
Analysis
Antecedents of Petty Tyranny
Hierarchical regression analyses were used to assess
H I to H3. First, given the moderate correlation of .52
between subordinate 1s and subordinate 2s assessment
of managerial tyranny, a more reliable assessment was
computed by standardizing and summing the mean
(between subordinates) of each of the six dimensions of
tyranny. Second, mean petty tyranny was regressed on
the control variables: managerial demographics and
organizational characteristics. Third, in a series of hier-
archical analyses, mean tyranny was regressed on the
hypothesized antecedents (as provided by the manager)
and the relevant interaction terms (see Figure 2). The low
to moderate intercorrelations among the antecedents
suggest minimal redundancy; thus, to preserve degrees
of freedom, mean tyranny was not regressed on all of the
hypothesized antecedents simultaneously.
Effects of Petty Tyranny
H4 to H8 were also assessed via hierarchical regres-
sion analyses. As depicted by the arrows in Figure 2, four
separate analyses were conducted: (a) subordinate 1s
assessment of petty tyranny was associated with subor-
dinate 1s assessment of the effects, (b) subordinate 2s
assessment of tyranny was associated with subordinate
2s assessment of the effects, (c) subordinate 1s assess-
ment of tyranny was associated with subordinate 2s
assessment of the effects, and (d) subordinate 2s assess-
ment of tyranny was associated with subordinate 1s
assessment of the effects. This within-subordinate
(i.e., one subordinate provides both the assessment of
tyranny and the effects) and between-subordinate (i.e.,
one subordinate provides the assessment of tyranny and
the other provides the effects) approach enabled a direct
comparison of results with and without the potential con-
found of method variance. Note that the use of the mean
tyranny measure discussed above would not have
resolved this issue.
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
14(2),
- 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS... ASHFORTH

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Hypothesized Effects Plus Tyranny

Variable n Items Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Subordinate I :
1. Tyranny" 88 - 0.00 0.78 (-1
2. Leader endorsement 88 4 3.68 0.96 -80** (94)
3. Leader identification 88 11 3.12 0.76 -67** 69"" (92)
4. Frustration 88 2 2.92 0.98 35** -39"" -34** (80)
5. Symptoms of stressb 88 7 2.78 1.00 26** -38** -29** 64** (81)
6. Reactance 88 7 2.40 0.65 43** -35** -13 46** 39** (75)
7. Helplessness 88 6 2.67 0.76 42** -37** -46"" 36** 33"" 13 (86)
8. Intention to turn over 88 3 2.77 1.28 39"" -44** -36"" 37** 33** 41"" 32"" (88)
9. Job involvement 88 10 2.86 0.70 -30** 25** 49** -17 -12 -01 -44** -39** (87)
10. Organizational
commitment 88 15 3.28 0.72 -44"" 44"" 5O** -41** -33** -3O** -51** -66** 65** (92)
1 1. Self-esteem 88 10 4.20 0.52 -19* 07 00 -31""-25** -31** -31** -28** 08 34**
12. Performancec 88 6 7.36 0.98 -25** 25" 13 -16 -09 -33** -23" -16 30** 23*
13. Social isolation 87 7 2.65 0.69 21* -23" -36"" 03 -04 -18 32** 08 -34** -23*
14. Group fragmentation 87 4 2.72 0.97 34** -36** -28** 05 09 19* 25* 03 -16 -20"

Subordinate 2:
15. Tyranny" 76 - 0.00 0.80 51** -37** -45** 13 15 23* 27** 23" -19* -25*
16. Leader endorsement 76 4 3.64 0.95 -57** 43"" 49** -05 -09 -06 -32** -14 24" 16
17. Leader identification 75 11 2.95 0.76 -37** 21* 35**-01 -04 06 -28** -02 14 05
18. Frustration 76 2 2.93 1.02 19" -16 -19 10 15 08 15 20* -11 -14
19. Symptoms of stressb 76 7 2.74 1.09 06 -06 00 06 18 -05 10 16 -01 -05
20. Reactance 76 7 2.33 0.61 28** -16 -21* 13 15 23* 29** 00 -16 -19
21. Helplessness 76 6 2.79 0.88 24* -13 -28** -07 06 -03 33** 14 -15 -17
22. Intention to turn over 76 3 2.63 1.19 23* -12 -34** 06 07 04 37** 18 -34** -27""
23. Job involvement 76 10 2.74 0.72 -20* -02 22" -09 -05 09 -16 05 14 16
24. Organizational
commitment 76 15 3.30 0.71 -16 03 26* -11 -08 01 -31** -20* 28** 29**
25. Self-esteem 76 10 4.20 0.62 05 -05 -12 -14 -19* -19 02 -08 -02 06
26. Performancec 76 6 7.31 0.84 03 -05 -23" -18 -08 -18 00 18 -09 -08
27. Social isolation 76 7 2.53 0.72 -01 02 -03 -07 -08 -21* 04 -09 -07 06
28. Group fragmentation 76 4 2.66 0.96 19 -20* -20* 06 08 -05 17 11 -01 -02

. . . . continued

Results nates' assessment of tyranny and the hypothesized

antecedents. Mean tyranny was significantly correlated
Antecedents of Petty Tyranny with managers' tolerance of ambiguity (r=-.31, ~ 5 . 0 1 )
and Theory X beliefs (r=.20, ~ 1 . 0 5 )In. addition, subor-
Table 1 presents the correlations between subordi- dinate 2's rating of tyranny (not shown) was positively
Revue canadienne des sciences de l'administration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
134 14(2),
- 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS ... ASHFORTH

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Hypothesized Effects Plus Tyranny-Continued

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(84)
38** (80)
-11 00 (85)
-02 05 61** (88)

-22* -11 -04 00 (-1

02 -06 -14 -16 -68** (93)
17 -08 -13 -15 -65** 77** (90)
-09 09 -03 -02 44"" -34** -37** (81)
-14 01 -04 -16 30** -21* -25" 56** (85)
-27** -04 03 12 41** -21* -22* 45"" 20" (72)
-11 -10 02 09 43** -46** -55** 34** 27** 18 (86)
-05 -10 -07 -12 33** -38** -39** 44** 11 17 41"" (88)
16 -05 00 03 -21* 33** 53**-16 -01 -06 -32**-38**(86)

22" 00 12 17 -39** 45** 58**-39** -14 -11 -52**-75** 67**(91)

18 -04 22* 19 -36** 12 27* -42** -48** -35** -27**-17 07 21" (88)
19* 07 00 -03 03 -02 -03 02 -12 -20* 11 18 05 -03 27**(69)
05 16 34** 10 20* -32** -28** 36"" 27** 18 12 06 -17 -16 -03 -10 (84)
05 03 26* 14 41** -38** -35** 38** 43** 17 43** 03 -05 -11 -27**-05 48"" (81)

Note. Decimals in the correlation matrix are omitted. Estimates of internal consistency are along the diagonal. All variables are measured on 5-point
Likert-type scales except the following:
a Computed by standardizing and summing each of the six dimensions of tyranny. When the 47 items from which the dimensions are derived are sim

ply summed, the descriptive statistics are as follows: Subordinate 1:X = 2.21, SD = 0.65, Q = .96, Subordinate 2: X = 2.22, SD = 0.66, Q = .96.
Two of the items are measured on 5-point Liken-type scales, and five items are measured on 6-point Likert-type scales.
Measured on a 9-point Likert-type scale.
* p 5 .05
** p 5 . 0 1

associated with managers' bureaucratic orientation
(p.23, ~ 5 . 0 5 ) .
The interactions between individual predispositions
and situational facilitators detailed in H1, H2, and H3,
were examined through hierarchical regression analyses.
135
Demographic and situational variables were entered as
potential controls. Mean tyranny was first regressed on
the managerial demographic variables (age, gender, edu-
cation, organizational tenure). Neither the equation
(F(4,52)=<1) nor any single demographic variable was
Revue canadienne des sciences de I'administration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
-14(2), 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS...
significant. Accordingly, none of these variables was
retained, and mean tyranny was regressed on the organi-
zational variables not hypothesized as antecedents (orga-
nization size, number of direct subordinates, hierarchical
level). Once again, neither the equation (F(3,71)=<1) nor
any single variable was significant. Thus, none of these
variables was retained.
HI held that the individual predispositions of
bureaucratic orientation and Theory X beliefs will inter-
act with the situational facilitator of organizational type
to predict tyrannical management. However, neither of
the regression equations, with the main effect and inter-
action terms entered, was significant: bureaucratic orien-
tation/organizational type: F(3,68)=< 1; Theory Xlorga-
nizational type: F(3,68)=1 S 6 .
H2 held that for managers with relatively low
self-esteem, tyranny will be associated with power in a
U-shaped function, but for managers with relatively
high self-esteem, tyranny will not be associated with
power. Based on a median split, managers were divided
into low and high self-esteem groups. For each group,
mean tyranny was then regressed on power and its
square (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The regression equation
was not significant for either the relatively low self-
esteem group (F(2,28)=<1) nor the high group
(F(2,29)<1).
Finally, H3 held that a managers directiveness and
tolerance of ambiguity will each interact with situation-
al stressors to predict tyranny. The regression equation
for tolerance of ambiguity/stressors was significant
(F(3,7 1)=2.83, p ~ . 0 5 ) but
, the interaction term did not
attain significance. The regression equation for direc-
tiveness/stressors was not significant (F(3,71)=<1).
Effects of Petty Tyranny
Table 2 presents the correlations between tyranny
and the 13 effects (the 5 aggregated block variables are
not shown). Subordinate 1s assessment of managerial
tyranny was significantly associated with all 13 effects
(and all 5 block variables) for subordinate 1, and with 7
effects (3 of 5 blocks) for subordinate 2. Subordinate 2s
assessment of tyranny was significantly associated with
8 effects ( 3 of 5 blocks, plus one at ~ 5 . 1 0 for
) subordi-
nate 1, and with 12 effects (4 of 5 blocks, plus one at
~ 5 . 1 0 for
) subordinate 2.
The associations between tyranny and the effects
were examined more rigorously through hierarchical
regression analyses. First, for each subordinate, each
block variable was regressed on the demographic control
variables (age, gender, education, organizational tenure).
Second, the block variable was regressed on any signifi-
cant demographic variables as well as situational control
variables (organization type, organization size, hierarchi-
136
ASHFORTH
cal level, the managers number of direct subordinates).
Third, the block variable was regressed on any signifi-
cant controls from the previous step and the individuals
assessment of managerial tyranny. This approach
enabled an assessment of the unique contribution of
tyrannical behaviour to each hypothesized effect. In a
critical variation of the third step, the other subordinates
assessment of tyranny was used instead of the focal sub-
ordinates assessment, providing the between-subordi-
nate analysis. As noted, this variation enabled us to
assess the contribution of tyrannical behaviour to the
hypothesized effects without the potential confound of
common method variance.
The results are presented in Table 3. The table pro-
vides the relevant Bs and F-ratios for the third step (and
the variation) in the hierarchical regression analyses for
subordinates 1 and 2. Regarding the within-subordinate
analyses, for subordinate 1, managerial tyranny was sig-
nificantly associated with all five block variables; for
subordinate 2, tyranny was significantly associated with
four of the five (the exception was self-esteemlperfor-
mance). Regarding the between-subordinate analyses,
subordinate 1s assessment of tyranny predicted subordi-
nate 2s leader endorsement and helplessness/work
alienation at ~ 5 . 0 5and frustratiodstresslreactance at
p. 10; subordinate 2s assessment of tyranny predicted
subordinate 1s leader endorsement and helplessness /
work alienation at ~ 5 . 0 5and self-esteem / performance
at p ~ . 1 0 . 3
In sum, the within-subordinate hierarchical regres-
sion analyses provide support for H4 (leader endorse-
ment), H5 (frustratiodstress/reactance), H6 (helpless-
nesslwork alienation), and H8 (work-unit cohesiveness);
and mixed support for H7 (self-esteedperformance).
The between-subordinate analyses provide support for
H4 and H6, mixed support for H5 and H7, and no sup-
port for H8.
Discussion and Conclusion
The study provides the first empirical assessment of
a formal model of petty tyranny in organizations. It
found that the tendency to lord ones power over others
could be reliably assessed by pairs of subordinates (in
terms of both internal consistency and inter-rater agree-
ment). However, none of the three interactions hypothe-
sized to foster petty tyranny were supported, although
subordinates joint ratings of tyranny were significantly
correlated with managers tolerance of ambiguity (nega-
tively) and Theory X beliefs (positively), and for the sub-
ordinate 2 group only, with managers bureaucratic ori-
entation (positively). Of the five hypothesized effects of
petty tyranny on subordinates, within-subordinate
Revue calladiemre des sciences de Iadrninistration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
14(2), 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY 1N ORGANIZATIONS ... ASHFORTH

~ ~ ~~ ~ ~

Table 3
Regression Results for Hypothesized Dependent Variables

Independent variables

With subordinate 1 With subordinate 2

Dependent variables rating of tyranny rating of tyranny

Subordinate I
Leader endorsement Age: .05 Age: .14
Tyranny: -.79** Tyranny: -.41**
( F (2,84) = 76.76**) ( F (2,72) = 9.79***)

Frustrationlstresslreactance Tyranny: .4 1** Tyranny: .20

( F (1,86) = 17.65**) ( F (1,74) = 2.98)

Helplessness/work alienation Age: -.19 Age: -.23*

Tyranny: .45** Tyranny: .25*
( F (2,84) = 15.57**) ( F (2,72) = 5.93**)

Self-esteem/performance Tyranny: -.28** Tyranny: -.17

( F ( I ,86) = 7.04**) ( F (1,74) = 2.33**)

Work-unit cohesiveness Hierarchical level: -.30** Hierarchical level: -.33**

Direct subordinates: -.33** Direct subordinates: -.35**
Tyranny: -.28** Tyranny: -.01
( F (3,70) = 8.03**) ( F (3,59) = 4.23**)
Subordinate 2 I

Leader endorsement Education: -.24* Education: -18*

Organization tenure: -.13 Organization tenure: -.23**
Tyranny: -.43** Tyranny: -.68**
( F (3,70) = 9.96"") ( F (3,70) = 29.39"")

Frustration/stress/reactance Tyranny: .21 Tyranny: .47**

( F (1,74) = 3.42) ( F (1,741 = 21.30**)

Helplessness/work alienation Age: -.33** Age: -.25*

Organization type: .34** Organization type: .32**
Tyranny: .26* Tyranny: .37**
( F ( 3 3 5 ) = 5.76**) ( F ( 3 5 5 ) = 7.81**)

Self-esteem/performance Tyranny: -. 18
( F (1.74) = 2.39)

Work unit cohesiveness Tyranny: -. I2 Tyranny: -.37**

( F (1,74) = 1.03) ( F (1,74) = 1 1.57**)

Nore. Column entries are standardized (3s. The inclusion of demographic and organizational control variables resulted in varying sample sizes across
analyses, thus raising the possibility that the data for any one analysis are not representative. To check for the robustness of the results, the regressions
were rerun without the control variables. The results presented above were not significantly affected.
:k /15.05
:$* p5.01

Revue canadienne des sciencca dc I'administration

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
137 14(2), 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS
regression analyses provided support for leader endorse-
ment (negative), frustration/stress/reactance (positive),
helplessness/work alienation (positive), and work-unit
cohesiveness (negative), and mixed support for self-
esteedperformance (negative). More rigorous between-
subordinate analyses provided support for leader
endorsement and helplessness/work alienation, mixed
support for frustration/stress/reactance and self-
esteedperformance, and no support for work-unit cohe-
siveness.
A Second Look at the Phenomenon of Petty Tyranny
The problematic results regarding the hypothesized
antecedents may be at least partly attributable to the rel-
atively low reliabilities (<.70) of some of the
antecedents. Low reliabilities, of course, attenuate pre-
dictive power. The problematic results might also reflect
conceptual issues. First, it was implicitly assumed that
the hypothesized antecedents are related to tyrannical
behaviour in an atomized fashion - such that, say, two
units of power/self-esteem provoke one unit of tyranny.
Second, it was implicitly assumed that the distribution of
tyranny, although somewhat positively skewed, tends
toward normality - such that managers can be
described as more or less tyrannical. However, the poor
showing of the hypothesized antecedents of tyranny and
the relatively low level of perceived tyranny (mean for
the 88 sets [based on unstandardized dimensions] = 2.20,
on a 5-point scale) suggest that these assumptions may
warrant reexamination.
Perhaps petty tyranny can be more accurately
described as a gestalt or syndrome, that is, as a set of
individual predispositions, situational facilitators, leader
behaviours, and subordinate effects that form a relative-
ly integrated and coherent cluster. Because the compo-
nents are mutually reinforcing (as indicated by the feed-
back arrows in Figure l), the gestalt would likely be
resistant to change.
This gestalt notion focuses attention on the whole,
the pathological configuration, rather than on individual
variables. Whereas any given manager might display
tyrannical tendencies from time to time - and it may
well be these tendencies that are captured by the present
research design - the full-blown pathology of petty
tyranny would tend to be much less common and would
require the press of some potent combination of individ-
ual and situational antecedents. Indeed, perhaps petty
tyranny is based at least partly on some form of psy-
chopathology, such as paranoia or compulsiveness (Kets
de Vries, 1991). Thus, rather than look for atomized and
essentially linear associations between antecedents and
tyrannical behaviours, the focus would shift toward
holistic and nonlinear associations, replete with thresh-
138
ASHFORTH
old effects and discontinuous change. This suggests a
very provocative direction for future research. As noted,
the model of petty tyranny in Figure 1 is based largely on
rich anecdotal evidence. The strength of such idiograph-
ic accounts lies precisely in their ability to illuminate a
gestalt. What may be needed, then, is a design that more
rigorously captures the hypothesized gestalt of tyranni-
cal management. One possibility would be to have indi-
viduals nominate a set of managers in their organization
who lord their power and a set of managers who do not
lord their power. Phillips and Lord (1986) maintain that
classifying leaders into such categories capitalizes on
perceivers natural tendency to form holistic perceptions
of others and on the salience of such categorical percep-
tions. Discriminant analysis could then be utilized to
determine the variables that best discriminate between
the tyrannical and nontyrannical managers.
Further, the present study assumed a dyadic per-
spective: that subordinates could provide reliable and
valid data on the tyrannical behaviours of their immedi-
ate manager. However, the viewpoint of subordinates is
necessarily circumscribed by their role and may be influ-
enced by their dependent status, and managers may well
alter their behaviour for different audiences (Adorno et
al., 1950). Thus, it would be useful to compare the per-
ceptions of subordinates with those of others, such as the
focal managers colleagues and superiors. Moreover,
survey methods could be complemented by additional
methods, including participant observation, interviews,
and content analyses of published accounts of prominent
organizational leaders. Such methods would be particu-
larly helpful in adducing elements of the organizational
context that bear on the emergence and maintenance of
tyrannical tendencies.
Future research might also profitably employ a lon-
gitudinal design to capture potential feedback loops
between the effects of petty tyranny and hypothesized
antecedents. Given the honeymoon effect, where people
initially tend to view a new leader in very positive terms,
such a design may also capture the process of disillu-
sionment that ultimately undermines leader endorse-
ment.
Finally, future research might seek to determine the
prevalence of petty tyranny in general, and specifically
within and between various categories, such as demo-
graphic groupings (e.g., gender, age, education), hierar-
chical ranks, departmental and organizational forms,
industries, and nations. Whatever its current prevalence,
it seems likely that petty tyranny will become less com-
mon in the future - at least in many industrialized
nations - due to a variety of interlocking trends: the
shift to flatter hierarchies and an emphasis on lateral ver-
sus vertical information and decision-making flows; the
growing reliance on teamwork, self-managing units, and
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
14(2), 126-I40
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS
360-degree feedback; the increasing power of expertise
relative to authority; the growing proportion of female
managers and the decline of patriarchies; and the shift
from routine technologies and unskilled work to nonrou-
tine technologies and knowledge-intensive work. These
and other trends will likely make the managerial failings
of the petty tyrant more obvious and less tolerable.
Conclusion
The study assessed the validity of the model of
organizational petty tyrant behaviours, antecedents, and
effects presented in Ashforth (1994). Pairs of subordi-
nates evidenced reasonable agreement in their percep-
tions of their managers tyrannical behaviours. Although
these perceptions were not found to be significantly
associated with the hypothesized interactions of individ-
ual and situational antecedents, they were significantly
associated with an array of hypothesized pernicious
effects on subordinates cognitions, affective states, and
behaviours. Thus, this research offers a promising start
toward unravelling an especially insidious form of lead-
ership - particularly if future research can successfully
isolate managers who do not merely display occasional
tyrannical tendencies, but who can be truly described as
petty tyrants.
References
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., &
Sanford, R.N. ( 1950). The authoritarian personality. New
York: Harper & Row.
Allinson, C.W. (1984). Bureaucratic personality and organisa-
tion structure. Aldershot, England: Cower.
Ashforth, B.E. (1987). Organizations and the petty tyrant: An
exploratory study. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
Ashforth, B.E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 43, 207-242.
Ashforth, B.E. (1 990). The organizationally induced helpless-
ness syndrome: A preliminary model. Canadian Journal
of Administrative Sciences, 7 (3). 30-36.
Ashforth, B.E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human
Relations, 47, 755-778.
B a s , B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership:
Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.).
New York: Free Press.
Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T., & Taber, T.D. (1976). Relationship of
stress to individually and organizationally valued states:
Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 6 I , 4 1-47.
Bennett, R.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1991). The effects of sched-
ule and intensity of aversive outcomes on performance: A
139
ASHFORTH
multitheoretical perspective. Human Perfnrmance, 4 (2).
15.5-169.
Blalock, H.M., Jr. (1969). Theory construction: From verbal to
mathematical formulations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J.W. (1981). k?YyChOkJgiCCd reacfuncc:
A fheory of freedom and control. New York: Academic
Press.
Brodsky, C.M. (1976). The harassed workec Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality
variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29-50.
Chatman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational
research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 333-349.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple
regressiodcorrelation analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Giarrusso, N. (1990). An issue ofjob satisfaction. Unpublished
undergraduate term paper, Concordia University,
Montreal.
Gibbs, B.W., Ashforth, B.E., & House, R.J. (1989).
Charismatic leadership in the organization: A test of the
House model. Paper presented at the regional conference
of the International Association for Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Amsterdam.
Gordon, L.V. (1 973). Work environment preference schedule:
Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal
dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of
Criminology and Penology, I , 69-97.
Hollander, E.P., & Julian, J.W. (1970). Studies in leader legiti-
macy, influence, and innovation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5 , pp.
33-69). New York: Academic Press.
House, R., Rousseau, D.M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The
meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro
and macro organizational behavior. In L.L. Cummings &
B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 17, pp. 71-1 14). Greenwich, C T JAI Press.
Howat, G., & London, M. (1980). Attributions of conflict man-
agement strategies in supervisor-subordinate dyads.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 172- 175.
Izraeli, D.N. (197.5). The middle manager and the tactics of
power expansion: A case study. Sloan Management
Review, 16 ( 2 ) ,57-70.
Janis, I.L. (1982). Decisionmaking under stress. In L.
Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook Qf stress:
Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 69-87). New York:
Free Press.
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women ofthe corporation. New
York: Basic Books.
Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involve-
ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341 -349.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. ( 1 989). Prisoners of leadership. New
York: Wiley.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (Ed.) (1991). Organizations on the
couch: Clinical perspectives on organizational behavior
and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadministration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
14(2), 126-140
PETTY TYRANNY IN ORGANIZATIONS
Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lawler, E.J., & Thompson, M.E. (1978). Impact of leader
responsibility for inequity on subordinate revolts. Sociul
Psychology Quarterly, 41, 264-268.
McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Merton, R.K. (1968). Social theory and sociul .xtructure (Rev.
ed.). New York: Free Press.
Miller, D.E., Weiland, M.W., & Couch, C.J. (1978). Tyranny.
In N.K. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interuction
(Vol. 1, pp. 267-288). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on manugement: Inside our
strange world of organization.s. New York: Free Press.
Mossholder, K.W., Niebuhr, R.E., & Norris, D.R. (1990).
Effects of dyadic duration on the relationship between
leader behavior perceptions and follower outcomes.
Journal of Organizational Behavior; I I , 379-388.
Motowidlo, S.J., Packard, J.S., & Manning, M.R. (1986).
Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618-
629.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The mea-
surement of organizational commitment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior; 4, 224-247.
Nulty, P. (1989, Feb. 27). Americas toughest bosses. Fortune,
pp. 40-43, 46, 50, 54.
OReilly, C.A., 111, Bretton, G.E., & Roberts, K.H. (1974).
Professional employees preference for upward mobility:
An extension. Journal ofVocational Behuvioc 5, 139- 145.
Patchen, M. ( 1970). Participation, achievement and involve-
ment on the job. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Peterson, C., Maier, S.F., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1993). Learned
helplessness: A theory f o r the age of personal control.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Phillips, J.S., & Lord, R.G. (1986). Notes on the practical and
theoretical consequences of implicit leadership theories
for the future of leadership measurement. Journal of
Mana~ement,12, 3 1-4 1.
Podsakoff, P.M., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1985). Field studies of
French and Ravens bases of power: Critique, reanalysis,
and suggestions for future research. Psychological
Bulletin, 97, 387-41 1.
Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., & Huber, V.L.
(1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and pun-
ishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.
Ray, J.J. (1976). Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes?
Human Relations, 29, 307-325.
Ray, J.J. (1980). Authoritarianism in California 30 years later
- with some cross-cultural comparisons. Journal [j
Social Psychology, I I I, 9- 17.
140
ASHFORTH
Rizzo, J., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.1. (1970). Role conflict
and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrtrtive
Science Quarterly, 15, 150- 163.
Rosenberg, M. ( 1965). Society and the adolescent .self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rubin, R. (1987). Modern dictators: Third world coup makers,
strongmen, andpopulist tyrants. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (Eds.)
( 1982). Observing and measuring organizational change:
A guide tofiefdpmctice. New York: Wiley.
Smith, B.J. (1982). An initial test of a theory ojcharismatic
leadership based on the responses of subordinates.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Spautz, M.E. (1975). A new scale for Theories X and Y.
Australian Journal of P hology, 27, 127-141.
Spector, P.E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and
review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31, 8 IS-
829.
Sunar, D.G. (1978). Stereotypes of the powerless: A social psy-
chological analysis. Psychological Reports, 43, 5 1 1-528.
Thompson, V.A. (1961). Modern organization. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Wagner, J.A., 111, & Crampton, S.M. (1990). Percept-percept
methods in psychological research on organizations: A
meta-analytic investigation of artifactual effects. Academy
ofhlanagement Best Papers Proceedings, 400-404.
Zelditch, M., Jr., & Walker, H.A. (1984). Legitimacy and the
stability of authority. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.), Advunces in
group processes (Vol. I. pp. 1-25). Greenwich, C T JAI
Press.
Notes
Given the pathological nature of petty tyranny, I expected
to find relatively few highly tyrannical individuals, and
thus, a positively skewed distribution of tyranny scores. In
fact, the skewness coefficient was only moderate (subor-
dinate 1: 0.81; subordinate 2: 0.78). Not surprisingly,
then, a square root transformation of the tyranny scores
yielded virtually identical results to those reported below.
The impact of standardization on the results reported
below was in fact marginal since the correlation between
the standardized tyranny score and the unstandardized
score was ~ . 9 (9p . 0 1 ) for both subordinate I and sub-
ordinate 2.
Following the findings of Mossholder, Niebuhr, and
Norris (1990), moderated regression analysis was utilized
to assess whether the associations between tyrannical
behaviour and the hypothesized effects were moderated
by the length of time a subordinate had served under their
manager. No interaction term was significant.
Revue canadienne des sciences de Iadrninihtration
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
___
14(2), 126-140