View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Resistance to Authority 1
Running head: RESISTANCE TO AUTHORITY
Resistance to deficient organizational authority:
The impact of culture and connectedness in the workplace
Wilhelmina Wosinska, Arizona State University West
Robert B. Cialdini, Arizona State University
Petia Petrova, Dartmouth College
Vladas Griskevicius, Arizona State University
Daniel W. Barrett, University of Pennsylvania
Malgorzata Gornik-Durose, University of Silesia, Poland
Jonathan Butner, University of Utah
Resistance to Authority 2
Abstract We investigated resistance to a request made by a manager who lacked a key
leadership attribute - expertise or relationality - in countries that differed in traditional
individualistic versus collectivistic orientation (the U.S. and Poland). An experiment
examined how resistance to a deficient authority is affected by degree of employee
connectedness at the workplace. Results were consistent with cultural differences in the
key preferred attribute of leaders in the two nations. That is, participants in each country
were more resistant to a manager who lacked the attribute that is more valued in that
particular culture: Americans were more noncompliant with managers lacking in expertise,
whereas Poles were more noncompliant with managers lacking in relational skills.
However, this culturally-valued-leadership-deficiency effect occurred only under
conditions of well-established workplace relationships, suggesting that connectedness to
the group creates a tendency to behave in line with predominant cultural norms. Practical
implications of the effect and its preconditions are discussed.
Resistance to Authority 3
There is a long and rich history of theory and research regarding effective social
influence approaches within organizations (Emans, Munduate, Klaver, & van de Vliert,
2003; Hirokawa & Wagner, 2004; Koslowsky, Schwartzwald, & Ashuri, 2001; Kramer &
Neale, 1998; Lord, 1977; Rahim & Buntzman, 1988; Raven, 1965, 1992, 1993; Raven,
Schwartzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998; Schwartzwald, Koslowsky, & Agassi, 2001; Yukl,
1994; Yukl, & Falbe, 1991). However, even though rapid globalization and the
accompanying growth of international business have helped fuel an interest in cross-
cultural organizational research, almost all of these studies have investigated effective
organizational influence as it occurred in a single nation.
In an attempt to help redress this imbalance, we sought to investigate one
fundamental source of organizational influence - managerial authority - in a pair of
cultures (Poland and the U.S.) whose members were likely to value different types of
authority (Fakouri & Mehryar, 1972; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987; Wojciszke, 1997).
Moreover, we sought not to examine compliance with properly exercised managerial
authority but to study noncompliance with deficiently exercised authority. More
specifically, we set out to build on the emerging research on resistance to authority
(Sachau, Houlihan, & Gilbertson, 1999; Sagarin, Cialdini, Rice, & Serna, 2002) by looking
at how a deficiency in a supervisor’s managerial approach could lead to employee
resistance to that manager’s request.
Expert and relational authorities in a cross-cultural perspective.
Before describing our investigation in detail, it is necessary to explicate two crucial
distinctions pertaining to authority and culture. The first refers to types of authority and
specifically to the difference between expert versus relational leaders. The second
Resistance to Authority 4
considers cultural differences with regard to an individualistic versus collectivistic value
orientation.
The distinction between expert and relational leaders dates back to Bales’ (1958)
classic research looking at the influence of task-oriented (that is, using expertise to achieve
success) versus socio-emotional (that is, requiring relational skills for success) managers.
This important dichotomy appears in numerous conceptualizations under various labels for
authority, such as facilitative versus supportive (Bowers & Seashore, 1966), production-
centered versus employee-centered (Likert, 1967), administratively-skilled versus
relations-skilled (Mann, 1965), or goal-achievement versus group-maintenance oriented
leaders (Cartwright & Zander, 1968). More recently, Tyler (1997) has proposed a similar
taxonomy of types of organizational authorities, including instrumental (stemming from
the skillful management of resources) and relational (resulting from efficient interactions
with others).
This expert versus relational distinction has also been examined cross-culturally in
nations and individuals that differ in their individualistic and collectivistic value systems
(Adler, Campbell, & Laurent, 1989; De Bruin & Van Lange, 2000; Fakouri & Mehryar,
1972; Schwartz, 1999; Wojciszke, 1997). This research has shown that both individuals
and cultures that tend to prefer either an individualistic or a collectivistic value system can
also be expected to show preferences for expert versus relational leaders, respectively. For
example, persons with individualistic value orientations tend to search primarily for
competence information when forming impressions of others (De Bruin & Van Lange,
2000), whereas people with collectivistic value orientations tend to focus primarily on
information concerning relationality and morality (Schwartz, 1999; Wojciszke, 1997).
Since people in individualistic and collectivistic cultures differ in the extent to which they
Resistance to Authority 5
value different attributes in an authority, we might expect that in both cultures employees
would be more resistant to an authority deficient in the culturally valued characteristic.
However, we believe there may be an additional, complicating factor: employee
connectedness within their workgroups.
Employee connectedness in the workgroup and compliance.
Considerable research demonstrates that when people receive requests from a
legitimately constituted authority, they often comply, even in a direction they would not
prefer (Blass, 1999; Hofling, Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves, & Pierce, 1966; Krackow &
Blass, 1995; Milgram, 1974). One factor that has been shown to affect organizational
leaders’ effectiveness is the quality of the relationships between employees and the
manager (see Gerstner & Day, 1997, for a review). However, none of these studies nor
any other that we are aware of examined how employees’ relationships with co-workers
impact their resistance to an organizational authority. To the extent that one feels
connected to a group, influences from within the group may be powerful enough to
counteract tendencies toward deference to authority (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987; van Knippenberg, 2000).
According to Social Categorization Theory (Turner et al., 1987; Terry, Hogg, &
White, 2000), the effect of group membership is to render behavior more congruent with
the likely norms and prototypical behavioral characteristics of the group. Support for this
contention comes from evidence that group membership leads members to respond as a
prototypical group member would (Levine & Moreland, 1998; Kashima & Lewis, 2000;
van Knippenberg, 2000). Thus, if group membership activates conformity with the likely
group norms and ideals, culturally prototypical responding in the workplace should occur
principally when workgroup connectedness is high.
Resistance to Authority 6
Research Overview
In order to examine resistance to managerial authority, we constructed an
experiment in which university students in Poland and in the U.S. indicated the extent to
which they would comply with a supervisor’s request to support an initiative that they felt
would be wrongheaded. It might be argued that the aggressive entrance of a market
economy and Western customs into Poland would blunt effects attributable to national
differences in individualistic versus collectivistic value orientation. However, Reykowski
and his colleagues (Reykowski, 1994; Reykowski & Smolenska, 1993) have argued that
these influences have produced only superficial changes that have not much affected deep-
seated traditional collectivistic values. Consequently, Poland still scores in the low to
average range on measures of individualism (Nasierowski & Mikula, 1998).
We varied whether the supervisor was deficient in expert or relational qualities.
Moreover, we manipulated whether participants had a high or low degree of connectedness
with their workplace colleagues. That is, participants were either told to suppose that they
had many or few personal relationships and contacts with their workmates. We considered
two possible outcomes.
Possible Outcome #1: Resistance would be greater in Poland to a manager who is
deficient in relational (versus expert) qualities of leadership; but, resistance would be
greater in the U.S. to a manager who is deficient in expert (versus relational) qualities
of leadership.
Such a potential outcome would support the assumption that traditional differences
in individualistic versus collectivistic orientations of the two countries (Nasierowski &
Mikula, 1998) would incline Polish participants to be more resistant to managers who
violated the cultural value for relationality and would incline U.S. participants to be more
Resistance to Authority 7
resistant to managers who failed to meet the cultural value for expertise. Hence, the
outcome would manifest itself as a 2-way interaction between nation and type of
managerial deficiency. According to this set of assumptions, degree of connectedness with
one’s workgroup should not affect the expected pattern.
Possible Outcome #2: Poles should show greater resistance to a relationally-deficient
manager, whereas Americans should show greater resistance to an expertise-deficient
manager; but, this pattern should occur principally among employees who have a high
degree of workgroup connectedness.
If this pattern of results occurred, it would support the assumption that high
workgroup connectedness should stimulate tendencies to conform to the most likely group
norms and ideals relevant to the culture. In a traditionally collectivistic country such as
Poland, these norms and ideals would favor relationality, generating greater resistance to a
leader who was deficient in this regard. In a largely individualistic nation such as the U.S.,
however, these norms and ideals would favor expertise, generating greater resistance to a
leader who was deficient in this respect. This outcome would manifest itself as a 3-way
interaction of nation, type of managerial deficiency, and degree of workgroup
connectedness.
Method
Participants and procedure.
Our participants consisted of undergraduate psychology majors from two countries:
160 from Poland (42 males and 118 females) and 162 from the US (46 males and 117
females). The Polish translation of the American version of the material was re-translated
back to English by a bilingual speaker and matched for adequacy, which did not require
any substantial adjustments.
Resistance to Authority 8
To test the amount of reported resistance in response to a manager’s request, we
used a typical arrangement employed in previous research on compliance in organizations
(e.g., Koslowsky, Schwartzwald, & Ashuri, 2001; Raven, Schwartzwald, & Koslowsky,
1998). Participants were first presented with a specific organizational situation that
concludes with a manager making a request which conflicts with the employee’s personal
opinion. Participants were then asked to indicate their likelihood of compliance with the
manager’s request.
To test our hypotheses we employed a 2 x 2 x 2 design with nation (US and
Poland), type of managerial deficiency (expertise-deficient vs. relationally-deficient), and
degree of workgroup connectedness (high vs. low) as between-subjects factors. Our key
dependent variable was the reported willingness to comply with the manager’s request.
To manipulate these factors, we used the following scenario, where brackets and
italics denote phrasing in two different conditions:
Imagine that 2-3 months ago you started working for a firm in a lower management
position. [Low Degree of Connectedness: Because you are new, you haven’t yet
established] [High Degree of Connectedness: Even though you are new, you have already
established] very many personal relationships and contacts in the workplace with other
employees.
Your firm is considering a new program of managerial training for many current
managers, including you. As is traditional for your firm, whenever a change of this sort is
proposed, those managers who will be directly affected are asked to give their opinions
about the proposed program. This program will be quite time consuming and, in your
opinion, it would not be worth the effort it will require. You will be asked to give your
vote on this matter anonymously so that no one can know how you voted. Your immediate
Resistance to Authority 9
boss, Mr. Keller, has made it clear in a departmental memo that he would like this new
training program to go forward. Thus, he has asked you and your fellow managers to
support it in your votes.
[Expertise-Deficient Manager: When making this decision, take into account that
your boss is concerned with his employees’ well-being and with maintaining harmonious
relationships with them; however, he has limited expertise in his field and is not that good
at achieving organizational goals.][Relationally-Deficient Manager: When making this
decision, take into account that your boss has high expertise in his field and is good at
achieving organizational goals; however, he is not that concerned with his employees’
well-being or with maintaining harmonious relationships with them.]
All participants were asked to indicate their willingness to comply by responding to
the following scale:
The likelihood that you will follow your boss’s wish and vote in favor of this new
program is:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
very low moderate very high
likelihood likelihood likelihood
Results
Our preliminary analyses indicated a significant main effect of gender, F(1, 306) =
9.180, p = .003, with males showing a higher likelihood of complying. Because gender did
not interact with any other variables, we included gender as a covariate in the analyses.
Additionally, we observed a marginal main effect of nation, F(1, 306) = 3.625, p = .058,
showing that Polish participants indicated a somewhat higher level of overall compliance.
Resistance to Authority 10
Support for Possible Outcome #1. The first possible outcome was that resistance in
each country would be greater to the type of manager who lacked the more culturally-
valued leadership attribute of that nation. Statistical support for this outcome would occur
as a 2-way interaction between nation and type of managerial deficiency across the two
workgroup connectedness conditions. However, our results showed that this interaction
was not significant, F(1, 306) = .810, p = .369.
Support for Possible Outcome #2. The second possible outcome was that the
phenomenon of greater resistance to the manager who lacked the culturally-valued
leadership attribute would appear principally when the employees had a high degree of
workgroup connectedness. Statistical support for this outcome would be indicated by the
joint presence of a 3-way interaction among nation, type of managerial deficiency, and
workgroup connectedness, and a 2-way interaction between nation and type of managerial
deficiency in the established workgroup connectedness condition. Both of these
interactions proved significant, F(2, 306) = 4.982, p = .007, and F(1, 151) = 7.348, p =
.007, respectively (see Figure 1).
[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE.]
As would be expected, analyses of simple effects in the high workgroup
connectedness condition indicated that the U.S. participants showed more resistance to an
expertise-deficient authority than to a relationally-deficient manager, F(1,75) = 3.998, p =
.049, whereas in Poland, participants indicated marginally more resistance to a relationally-
deficient authority than to an expertise-deficient manager, F(1, 76) = 3.368, p = .070. In
the low connectedness condition, on the other hand, there was a marginally significant 2-
way interaction between nation and type of managerial deficiency displaying a pattern
opposite to the one in the high connectedness condition, F(1,555) = 2.855, p = .093. The
Resistance to Authority 11
simple effects of the type of managerial deficiency in this condition, however, were not
significant for either the U.S., F(1,79) = 1.440, p = .234, or Poland, F(1,76) = 1.419, p =
.237.
Discussion
This study examined employee resistance to expertise- and relationally-deficient
authorities in the predominantly individualistic U.S. culture and the more collectivistic
culture of Poland. After reviewing the relevant literature, we had reason to believe that two
different outcomes were viable. First, because collectivists tend to value relationality while
for individualists expertise and competence take priority, one possibility was that these
cultural preferences would stimulate different patterns of resistance to deficient authorities
in the U.S. and Poland. Second, it was also plausible that this relative difference in
noncompliance would be qualified by the degree of employees’ connectedness within their
workgroup, such that high group connectedness would increase the salience and impact of
dominant cultural norms.
Our results indicated that Poles and Americans did indeed differ in their levels of
projected noncompliance with authorities deficient in expertise or relationality. As could
be predicted from cultural preferences related to prevailing value orientations, Poles felt
more resistance to a manager who was deficient in relationality, whereas Americans felt
more resistant to a manager who lacked expertise. In other words, people in each country
felt less willing to comply with a request from an authority who lacked the attributes that
are considered more important for leaders in that culture. However, this cultural difference
was only found in the context of well-established connections with other workgroup
members. That is, employees were more resistant to an authority who lacked the culturally-
valued trait only when they perceived many established connections to other workgroup
Resistance to Authority 12
members. Without a context of well-established connections to other workgroup members,
participants showed no differences in their relative resistance to either type of authority in
either country.
Theoretical implications. Despite the rapid shifts toward a market economy in
Eastern European countries, including Poland, numerous researchers have indicated that
such changes are so far having a relatively limited impact on traditional collectivistic
values (Nasierowski & Mikula, 1998; Reykowski, 1994, 1998; Schwartz & Bardi, 1997;
Szabo, Jarmuz, Maczynski, & Reber, 1997; Skipietrow, 1992). For instance, many Poles
still consider personal success to be a “sin” (Skarzynska, 1999; Wojciszke, 1999) and in
difficult situations they tend to seek support within family instead of managing on their
own (Reykowski, 1994; Reykowski, & Smolenska, 1993).
Our results support the notion that Poland still retains some core aspects of its
collectivistic identity, but our study also points out that these traditional values may not
manifest themselves under all circumstances. That is, while we did find the predicted
difference between the U.S. and Poland in terms of resisting deficient authorities, this
difference only appeared when group and cultural norms were made salient by the high
level of workplace connectedness. When these group bonds and salient norms were
relatively absent, Poles and Americans did not show any significant differences. These
findings fit well with evidence that group and cultural norms have little direct impact on
behavior unless they are salient in consciousness (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1999;
Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000).
It is also noteworthy to mention that while the two-way interaction in the low
connectedness condition was not conventionally significant (p = .093), the observed
pattern of results in this condition is exactly the opposite of the results in the high
Resistance to Authority 13
connectedness condition (see Figure 1). This reverse pattern may suggest that when
employees feel separated from the group, they may be more likely to act in the opposite
direction of the prototypical norms of the group. However, this speculation needs to be
examined in future studies.
Our data also highlight two important theoretical points regarding factors that can
lead to resistant behavior in organizations. First, it may be mistaken to think that cultural
differences in leadership preferences would not affect resistance to deficient authorities.
Much research has already found that leader prototypes for different cultures are related to
cultural values (e.g., House & Hanges, 1999; Brodbeck et al., 2000; Aycan, Kanungo,
Mendonca, Yu, Deller, Stahl & Kurshid, 2000; Smith, Wang, & Leung, 1997). Our
research expands on this idea by pointing out that these preferences are also important
when considering resistance to deficient authorities. In fact, we specifically found that
when a manager lacked an attribute that is preferably valued in that particular culture, our
participants became more resistant to the manager. We labeled this tendency the culturally-
valued-leadership-deficiency effect, and it is likely that this phenomenon is also relevant
beyond the organizational arena. For example, this effect would likely manifest itself in
any universal situation where an authority who is lacking in expertise or relationality may
be trying to influence a target, such as when a teacher attempts to gain the compliance of a
student. The applicability and magnitude of the culturally-valued-leadership-deficiency
effect across different types of social situations would be an interesting topic to examine in
further studies.
Second, it may be equally mistaken to think that group members’ level of
connectedness will not affect how people will resist a deficient authority. Our results
highlight that a connected workplace environment—one where people feel that they have
Resistance to Authority 14
many established relationships with their co-workers—is likely to make people more
inclined to act in accord with cultural norms. As before, this effect probably extends into
other social arenas beyond the organizational realm.
The current project also adds insight to the sparse literature on resistance to
authority. While some research on resistance in organizations has thus far examined
person-related characteristics, such as employees’ sex, age, and tenure (Sachau, Holihan, &
Gilbertson, 1999; Hong, 1999), our study points out that situational factors also play an
important role in resisting authority. More specifically, we found that the degree of
employee connectedness at the workplace may be a key factor in how employees react to
managerial requests. Undoubtedly, further research will need to examine how this
condition, intertwined with other situational factors, affects resistance to organizational
authorities.
Practical implications. Other researchers have noted that rapid globalization creates
a strong need for managers working in multi-national and international organizations to be
familiar with and to match their style to local cultural values (Cartwright & Cooper, 1993,
1996; Hanges, Lord, & Dickson, 2000). Our research supports these recommendations by
showing that cultural values do affect resistance to managerial directions and initiatives.
Furthermore, in order to overcome resistance from their employees, managers need to do
more than take into account the specific values of the culture; they also need to be aware of
the relationships among their subordinates. For instance, when dealing with a new
employee, even a deficient manager may experience little resistance and be lulled into a
false sense of security and efficiency. However, this lack of resistance might not be
indicative of the manager’s supervisory skills or actions. Indeed, noncompliance may
Resistance to Authority 15
increase as the employee establishes relationships at the workplace even if the manager’s
behavior has not changed, leaving the supervisor bewildered as to the cause.
Moreover, the increase in resistance due to employee connectedness will be
different across cultures. More specifically, resistance in a given culture will be sensitive to
the manager’s leadership style. In the United States, a manager who does not demonstrate
expertise may find increasing resistance from employees who become more connected to
other workers. In contrast, in more collectivistic cultures, such as Poland, employees may
become more resistant to a manager who does not have strong relational qualities.
Finally, these findings suggest that leaders who wish to obtain high levels of compliance
from their subordinates regarding initiatives and directives should consider different
influence strategies depending on the local culture. In more individualistic cultures, people
should be less likely to resist when the request or task is presented as one that would serve
effectiveness goals. In collectivistic cultures, subordinates should be less likely to resist
when a task is presented as one that would serve relational goals. It is important to note
that this culturally-valued-leadership-deficiency effect and the strategies to overcome it
should not be limited to business settings. As suggested previously, the same principles
should apply in any organization with a semblance of a leadership hierarchy, such as
political and health care organizations, non-profit agencies, and educational settings.
Moreover, although our specific findings relate only to Poland, we believe that similar
effects are also likely to be exhibited in other Eastern European nations and other cultures
with a stronger collectivistic orientation (Bond & Hewstone, 1988; Kagitcibasi, 1997).
Study limitations. A limitation of this study is one that is true of many cross-
cultural investigations. The effects we attributed to variations in the individualistic versus
collectivistic value orientations of our American and Polish participants could have been
Resistance to Authority 16
due to other differences between the two countries. Nonetheless, we can think of no other
previously recorded difference between Poland and the U. S. that could explain the pattern
of results we found. Perhaps the best candidate in this regard would be that of power
distance, which has been found to differ between the two nations, with Poles showing
higher levels of the construct (Hofstede, 2001; Nasierowski, & Mikula, 1998). However,
based on variations in power distance, one would only expect differences in the amount of
resistance to authority, not the more complex differences in resistance to specifically
deficient authorities that would be expected from variations in individualism/collectivism.
A second limitation of this research is that the results are based on a scenario
design. However, this methodology has been shown to be effective in similar research
(Koslowsky, Schwartzwald, & Ashuri, 2001; Raven, Schwartzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998).
Another limitation is related to using students as subjects. We believe, though, that this
study provides a pioneering step toward better understanding resistance to deficient
authorities in a cross-cultural setting. Nonetheless, future research should examine these
phenomena in field settings and in other cross-cultural contexts.
Resistance to Authority 17
References
Adler, N. J., Campbell, N., & Laurent, A. (1989). In search of appropriate
methodology: From outside the people’s Republic of China looking in. Journal of
International Business Studies, 20, 61-74.
Aykan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., &
Kurshid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-
country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 192-221.
Bales, R. F. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. In E. E.
Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology(pp.437-
446) New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now
know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 955-978.
Bond, M. H., & King, A. Y. C. (1985). Coping with the threat of Westernization in Hong
Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 211-225.
Bond. M H., & Hewston, M. (1988). Social identity theory and the perception of
intergroup relations in Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12,
153-170.
Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). Practicing organizational effectiveness
with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238-263.
Brodbeck, F. C. and 44 other authors (2000). Cultural variation of leadership
prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 73, 1-29.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd
ed.). New York: Harper &Row.
Resistance to Authority 18
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1993). The role of culture compatibility in
successful organizational marriage. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 57-70.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative
conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human
behavior. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp.
201-234). New York: Academic Press.
De Bruin, N. M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2000). What people look for in others:
Influences of the perceiver and the perceived on information selection. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 206-219.
Emans, B. J. M., Munduate L., Klaver, E., & van de Vliert, E. (2003). Constructive
consequences of leaders’ forcing influence styles. Applied Psychology: International
Review, 52, 36-54.
Fakouri, M. E., & Mehryar, A. H. (1972). A cross-cultural study of achievement
motivation. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 9, 31-32.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member
exchange theory: Correlations and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
827-844.
Hanges, P. J., Lord, R. G., & Dickson, M. W. (2000). An information processing
perspective on leadership and culture: A case for connectionist architecture. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 133-161.
Hirokowa, R. Y., & Wagner, A. E. (2004). Superior-subordinate influence in
organizations. In J. Seiter & R. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence,
and compliance-gaining (pp. 337-352). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Resistance to Authority 19
Hofling, C. K., Brotzman, E., Dalrymple, S., Graves, N., & Pierce, C. M. (1966).
An experimental study of nurse-physician relationships. Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 143, 171-180.
Hong, S.-M. (1994). Psychological reactance effects of age and gender. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 134, 223-29.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and
organizations: Project GLOBE. In W, Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.),
Advances in global leadership (vol. 1, 171-233). Stanford, CN: JAI Press.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1997) Individualism and collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall,
& C. Kagitcibasi (Eds) Handbook of cross-cultural psycholog:. Social behavior and
applications (vol. 3, 1-49), Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative
conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 1002-1012.
Kashima, Y., & Lewis, V. (2000). Where does the behavior come from in attitude-
behavior relations? Toward a connectionist model of behavior generation. In D. J. Terry &
M. A. Hogg (Eds), Attitudes, behavior, and social context (pp. 115-134). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Koslowsky, M., Schwartzwald, J., & Ashuri, S. (2001). On relationship between
subordinates’ compliance to power sources and organizational attitudes. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 455-476.
Krackow, A., & Blass, T. (1995). When nurses obey or defy inappropriate
physician orders: Attributional differences. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
10, 585-594.
Resistance to Authority 20
Kramer R. M., & Neale M. A. (Eds.) (1998) . Power and influence in organizations.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small groups. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, &
G. Lindzey (Eds), The handbook of social psychology, (vol. 2, pp. 416-469). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lord, R. G. (1977). Functional leadership behavior: Measurement and relation to
social power and leadership perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 114-133.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mann. F. C. (1965). Toward an understanding of leadership role in formal
organizations. In R. Dubin, G. C. Homans, F. C. Mann, & D. C. Miller (Eds.). Leadership
and productivity. San Francisco: Chandler.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper and Row.
Nasierowski W., Mikula, B. (1998). Culture dimensions of Polish managers:
Hofstede’s indices. Organization Studies, 19(3), 495-509.
Rahim, M., & Buntzman, G. (1988). Supervisory power bases, styles and handling
conflict with subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction. The Journal of
Psychology, 132, 195-210. Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In D. Steiner,
& M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French
and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(2), 217-144.
Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal
of Social Issues, 49(4), 227-251.
Resistance to Authority 21
Raven, B. H., Schwartzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and
measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28, 307-332.
Reykowski, J. (1994). Collectivism and individualism as dimensions of social
change, In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 276-292).
Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reykowski. J. (1998). Belief systems and collective action: Changes in Poland from
the psychological perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 89-108.
Sachau, D. A., Houlihan, D., & Gilbertson, T. (1999). Predictors of employee
resistance to supervisors’ request. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(5), 611-621.
Sagarin B. J., Cialdini R. B., Rice W. E. & Serna S. B. (2002). Dispelling the
illusion of invulnerability: The motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 526-541.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23-47.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (1997). Influences of adaptation to communist rule on
values priorities in Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 18, 385-419.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human
values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
Schwartzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Agassi, V. (2001). Captain’s leadership type
and police officers compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 10, 273-290.
Resistance to Authority 22
Skarzynska, K. (1999). Sprzeciw, poparcie czy “dawanie swiadectwa wartosciom”
– co motywuje Polakow do aktywnosci politycznej (Protest, support or “giving evidence to
the values” – what motivates Poles to political involvements). In B. Wojciszke, & M.
Jarymowicz (red.). Psychologia rozumienia zjawisk spolecznych (Psychology of
understanding social processes). Warszawa: PWN, 39-59.
Skipietrow, N. (1992). Europa Srodkowa – Raport o stanie ducha (Central Europe –
A report on its spirit condition). Gazeta Wyborcza, nr 300, grudzien 27, 14-15.
Smith, P. B., Wang, Z. M., & Leung, K. (1997). Leadership, decision-making and
cultural context: event management with Chinese joint ventures. Leadership Quarterly, 8,
413-131.
Szabo, E., Jarmuz, S., Maczynski, J., & Reber, G. (1997). Autocratic Polish versus
participative Austrian leaders: More than a cliché? Polish Psychological Bulletin, 28, 279-
291.
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (2000). Attitude and behavior relations:
Social identity and group membership. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes,
behavior, and social context (pp. 67-94). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trafimow, D., & Finlay, K. (1996). The importance of subjective norms for a
minority of people: Between-subjects and within-subjects analyses. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 820-828.
Trafimow, D., Silverman, E. S., Fan, R. M., & Law, J. S. F. (1997). Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 107-123.
Trafimow, D. Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction
between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 649-655.
Resistance to Authority 23
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Tyler, T. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy. A relational perspective in
voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Group norms, prototypicality, and persuasion. In D. J.
Terry & M.A. Hogg (Eds.). Attitudes, behavior, and social context (pp. 157-170).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wojciszke, B. (1997). Parallels between competence- versus morality-related traits
and individualistic versus collectivistic values. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27,
245-256.
Wojciszke, B. (1999). Grzech czy porazka. Moralne i sprawnosciowe kategorie w
potocznym rozumieniu swiata spolecznego (A sin or a defeat. Moral and competence-
related categories in naïve understanding of a social world). In B. Wojciszke, & M.
Jarymowicz (red.). Psychologia rozumienia zjawisk spolecznych (Psychology of
understanding social processes. Warszawa: PWN, 153-171.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in
downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416-423.
Resistance to Authority 24
Figure Caption
Figure 1: US and Polish participants' level of resistance as a function of type of managerial
deficiency and degree of workplace connectedness. (Responses were on a scale ranging
from 0 to 8, with lower numbers indicating greater resistance.)
Resistance to Authority 25
Figure 1.
U.S. Poland
DEGREE OF CONNECTEDNESS
MEAN COMPLIANCE
2.8
3.2
3.6
4.0
4.4
TYPE OF MANAGERIAL DEFICIENCY
LOW
Expertise-Deficient
Relationally-Deficient
2.8
3.2
3.6
4.0
4.4
3.91
3.43
2.95
3.84 3.88
4.37
4.17
3.33
HIGH
U.S. Poland
Research Overview Results
Recommended