학술논문
It’s the Base : Why Displaying Anger Instead of Sadness Might Increase Leaders’ Perceived Power but Worsen Their Leadership Outcomes
Document Type
research-article
Source
Journal of Business and Psychology, 2017 Dec 01. 32(6), 691-709.
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
08893268
1573353X
1573353X
Abstract
Although research has shown that anger displays lead to more perceived power than sadness displays, sadness displays often result in more positive leadership outcomes than anger displays. Aiming to explain this discrepancy, we examine the specific power bases that are inferred from leaders’ anger versus sadness displays as potential explanatory mechanisms.
We conducted three experimental studies, replicating results with students and working adults and with different induction methods.
Our results indicate that the discrepancy between the effects of anger and sadness displays on power ascriptions and leadership outcomes can be explained by divergent power bases ascribed to angry versus sad leaders. Whereas more position (i.e., legitimate, reward and coercive) power was ascribed to angry leaders than to sad leaders, sad leaders were viewed as possessing more personal (i.e., referent) power than angry leaders. Moreover, while angry leaders’ higher legitimate power was positively related to leaders’perceived effectiveness and follower loyalty, both enhanced coercive and reduced referent power were negatively related to these outcomes and positively related to leader-directed deviance.
Although previous literature suggests that displaying anger instead of sadness might be functional for leaders’ power, our findings aim to make leaders aware of the specific types of power they gain in followers’ eyes when displaying anger versus sadness.
By examining the power bases ascribed to angry versus sad leaders, our study reconciles inconsistent findings and elucidates the foundation on which angry versus sad leaders’ capacity to influence followers is built.
We conducted three experimental studies, replicating results with students and working adults and with different induction methods.
Our results indicate that the discrepancy between the effects of anger and sadness displays on power ascriptions and leadership outcomes can be explained by divergent power bases ascribed to angry versus sad leaders. Whereas more position (i.e., legitimate, reward and coercive) power was ascribed to angry leaders than to sad leaders, sad leaders were viewed as possessing more personal (i.e., referent) power than angry leaders. Moreover, while angry leaders’ higher legitimate power was positively related to leaders’perceived effectiveness and follower loyalty, both enhanced coercive and reduced referent power were negatively related to these outcomes and positively related to leader-directed deviance.
Although previous literature suggests that displaying anger instead of sadness might be functional for leaders’ power, our findings aim to make leaders aware of the specific types of power they gain in followers’ eyes when displaying anger versus sadness.
By examining the power bases ascribed to angry versus sad leaders, our study reconciles inconsistent findings and elucidates the foundation on which angry versus sad leaders’ capacity to influence followers is built.