Running head: RESISTANCE TO AUTHORITY · 2006. 8. 2. · Wilhelmina Wosinska, Arizona State...

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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Raven, B. H., Schwartzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and

measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social


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.


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



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.


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.)


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

Date post:	24-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Running head: RESISTANCE TO AUTHORITY · 2006. 8. 2. · Wilhelmina Wosinska, Arizona State...

Documents