Rebecca L. Greenbaum

Oklahoma State University

Hunter HarrisOklahoma State

University

When Leaders Fail to “Walk the Talk:” An Examination of Perceptions of Leader

HypocrisyMary Bardes

Drexel University

Ronald F. PiccoloRollins College

1

Perceptions of Leader HypocrisyLeadership’s dark side (Popper, 2001; Tierney & Tepper,

2007)Definition (antonym of behavioral integrity; Simons, 2002)

The leader expresses certain values, but fails to uphold those values as demonstrated by his/her attitudes and behaviors (Cha & Edmondson, 2006; Treviño, Hartman, & Brown, 2000).

Employees’ perceptions of leaders’ word-deed misalignment (Brunnson, 1989; Simons, 2002).

Why study leader hypocrisy?Subordinates pay attention to salient values (Salancik &

Pfeffer, 1978).

2

Research Question

?Perceptio

ns of Leader

Hypocrisy

Turnover Intention

s

A Hypocrisy Condition: Word-

deed Misalignment

A Hypocrisy-driven Outcome(Simons et al.,

2007)

3

Research Question

Supervisor Undermini

ng

Perceptions of

Leader Hypocrisy

Turnover Intention

s

A Hypocrisy Condition: Word-

deed Misalignment

Control Variables:Psychological Contract Breach

Trust in Supervisor

Interpersonal Justice Expectatio

n

4

A Hypocrisy ConditionSupervisor Undermining

“[Supervisory] behavior that is intended to hinder, over time, the ability [of subordinates] to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputations” (Duffy et al., 2002; p. 332).

Interpersonal Justice (IPJ) (Bies, 2005; Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1993)Respectful and socially sensitive treatment

IPJ ExpectationSubordinates perceive that their supervisors expect

them to treat others with interpersonal justice.5

MisalignmentSupervisor Undermining

A failure to show subordinates dignity/respectBelittling subordinates ideas, making them feel incompetent,

spreading rumors about them, talking badly about them (Duffy et al., 2002)

The presence of IPJ expectation adds insult to injury.Subordinates pay attention to salient expectations

(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).It’s clearer to subordinates that supervisors do not

“walk the talk.” “Not only does my supervisor treat me poorly, but

he/she is a hypocrite!”

6

Hypothesis 1:The interactive effect of supervisor undermining and interpersonal justice expectation is related to perceptions of leader hypocrisy such that the relationship between supervisor undermining and perceptions of leader hypocrisy is stronger when interpersonal justice expectation is high as opposed to low.

Supervisor Undermini

ng

Interpersonal Justice Expectatio

nPerceptio

ns of Leader

Hypocrisy7

Why do subordinates care?A theoretical explanation to account for reactions

to leader hypocrisy (Gosling & Huang, 2009)Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) is

used to account for people’s reactions to their own hypocrisy (Stone & Cooper, 2001).

Employees may also experience psychological discomfort (i.e., dissonance) in response to leader hypocrisy.

People derive a part of their self-concepts from their work groups (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). People care about the hypocrisy of work group members (McKimmie et al., 2003).

Leaders serve as exemplars of group conduct (Brown et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 2009).8

Dissonance Reduction: Turnover IntentionsEmployees experience dissonance arousal

in response to leader hypocrisy.An association with hypocritical leaders

challenges employees’ understanding of themselves as moral people (McKimmie et al., 2003; Thibodeau & Aronson, 1992).

Employees are motivated to reduce dissonance (Festinger, 1957).

They may psychologically distance themselves from the source of hypocrisy by intending to leave the organization.

9

Hypothesis 2:Perceptions of leader hypocrisy are positively related to turnover intentions.

Perceptions of

Leader Hypocrisy

Turnover Intention

s

10

Hypothesis 3:Perceptions of leader hypocrisy mediates the relationship between the interactive effect of supervisor undermining and interpersonal justice expectation on turnover intentions.

Supervisor Undermini

ng

Perceptions of

Leader Hypocrisy

Turnover Intention

s

Interpersonal Justice Expectatio

n

11

Alternative Explanations (Controls)

Related Constructs (Simons, 2002; Simons et al., 2007)

Psychological Contract Breach (Rousseau, 1989; Morrison & Robinson, 1997)

Trust (Mayer et al., 1995)

12

Study 1 Method: Participants and Procedure276 business administration students were

invited to participate in a scenario-based experiment.202 students agreed to participate (73%

response rate)Average age = 22 years75% Caucasian63% were currently working

13

Study 1 Method: Participants and Procedure (continued)Experimental Design

2 (supervisor undermining versus no supervisor undermining) x 2 (interpersonal justice expectation versus no interpersonal justice expectation)

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions.

Participants were asked to imagine themselves in the experimental scenario.

Pilot study results confirmed that the manipulations were effective.

14

Study 1 Method: MeasuresAll measures were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)Manipulation Checks:

Supervisor Undermining (13 items; Duffy et al., 2002; α = .97)Does your supervisor “talk bad about you

behind your back?”Interpersonal Justice Expectation (4 items;

adapted from Colquitt, 2001; α = .99)My supervisor expects me to “treat other

people with respect.” 15

Study 1 Method: Measures (continued)Perceptions of Leader Hypocrisy (4 items; Dineen et

al., 2006; α = .85)“I wish my supervisor would practice what he/she

preaches more often.”Turnover Intentions (4 items; adapted from Tett &

Meyer, 1993; α = .96)“I am thinking about leaving this organization.”

Controls Variables: 1)Psychological Contract Breach (5 items; Morrison &

Robinson, 1997; α = .77)2)Trust in Supervisor (3 items; Conger et al., 2000; α = .80)

16

Study 1 ResultsManipulation Checks:

Supervisor undermining: F (1, 208) = 50.9, p < .001 M = 5.81, SD = 1.04 (present)M = 4.43, SD = 1.64 (absent)

Interpersonal justice expectation: F (1, 205) = 446.71, p < .001M = 6.08, SD = 1.28 (present)M = 2.00, SD = 1.48 (absent)

Test of Hypotheses (Preacher et al., 2007):Hypothesis 1 was supported (B = 1.25, p < .01).

17

Hypothesis 1 Interaction (Study 1)

18

Study 1 Results (continued)Hypothesis 2 was supported.

B = .18, p < .01Moderated mediation results (Preacher et

al., 2007) provided support for Hypothesis 3.Absence of IPJE, B = -.06, ns Presence of IPJE, B = .16, p < .05

Bootstrap indirect effectsAbsence of IPJE, B = -.06, ns Presence of IPJE, B = .16, p < .05

19

Study 2 Method: Participants and ProcedureBusiness administration students recruited

533 working adults to participate in the survey.Usable data from 312 participants (59%

response rate)Average age = 26 years58% CaucasianAverage organizational tenure = 3 years54% working full-time, 46% part-time

20

Study 2 Method: MeasuresAll measures were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)Supervisor Undermining (α = .97)Interpersonal Justice Expectation (α = .96)Perceptions of Leader Hypocrisy (α = .92)Turnover Intentions (α = .95)Psychological Contract Breach (α = .91) (control)Trust in Supervisor (α = .82) (control)

21

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

22

Study 2 Results (Preacher et al., 2007)Hypothesis 1 was supported.

B = .10, p < .05Simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West,

1991):One standard deviation below the mean: t

=2.04, p < .05One standard deviation above the mean: t =

4.17, p < .001

23

Hypothesis 1 Interaction (Study 2)

24

Study 2 Results (continued)Hypothesis 2 was supported.

B = .22, p < .01Moderated mediation results (Preacher et al.,

2007) provided support for Hypothesis 3.-1 SD (4.76), B = .02, ns SD (6.05), B = .06, p < .05+1 SD (7.35), B = .09, p < .05

Bootstrap indirect effects-1 SD (4.76), B = .04, nsSD (6.05), B = .07, p < .10+1 SD (7.35), B = .10, p < .05

25

Indirect Effects at Levels of the Moderator (Study 2)

26

DiscussionOur results across two studies suggest that

the simultaneous presence of supervisor undermining and interpersonal justice expectation leads to perceptions of leader hypocrisy, which then leads to turnover intentions.

Our result hold even when controlling for alternative explanations (i.e., psychological contract breach, trust in supervisor).

27

Discussion (continued)Theoretical Implications

Leader hypocrisy may be even worse than other forms of bad leadership.

Employees’ reactions may also be driven by implicit expectations derived from societal norms concerning fair behavior (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Folger et al., 2005).

Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) may explain employees’ desire to leave the organization. By controlling for alternative explanations, our

results suggest that perceptions of leader hypocrisy is capturing something unique.

28

Discussion (continued)Practical Implications

Leaders should be cognizant of instances where their attitudes/behavior may not align with expressed expectations.

Limitations and Future DirectionsSame source bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003;

Spector, 2006) and cross-sectional dataMeasurement of dissonance arousalThe severity of hypocrisy

29

Thank you!Any questions?

30