Suspicious attitudes to leadership behaviour

Summary of recent research by Dr. Ron Cacioppe

Research and practice of leadership is often focused on the leader and as a result, follower ratings are often taken as accurate representations of leader behaviour. Recent research has shown that a suspicious attitude and a general negative view of leaders use of power, will bias follower perceptions of their leader’s behaviour. Two studies in the Leadership and Organizational Journal examined the relationship between suspicion, a person’s general views of use of leader power and the perception of abusive leaders. 

The first study involved a survey and the second study used experimental vignettes with both studies focussing on the relationship between the personality trait of suspicion and negative views of leadership generally and the perception of abusive supervision. 

Previous research has shown that people who have higher levels of negativity, neuroticism or narcissism will perceive higher levels of abusive behaviour in their supervisor. 

Both these recent studies showed that suspicion is positively related to the perception of abusive supervision. Suspicion is defined as a perception of negative motives or malintent to others. In addition to suspicion, it was shown that if a follower also has a general view of leaders (the negative variable in an ‘implicit’ view of leadership) as likely to abuse power, there will be an increased perception of abusive supervision.

These results show that there are biases in followers views of leadership behaviour. While previous research has demonstrated that follower characteristics result in perceptual biases of leadership, this recent research shows that followers who have a trait of suspicion and a general belief that leaders are likely to abuse their power, will judge their leaders more harshly.  

This research extends the influence of follower characteristics of the perception of abusive supervision by showing that a follower’s implicit view of leadership also has an influence.  

While there are many areas where these results are relevant, two situations can be especially influenced by follower biases. These are:

1. Alleged cases of bullying; An allegation of bullying is a very sensitive area and needs to be handled with caution. It is useful for Human Resource professionals and senior leaders who are involved in cases of bullying to become aware of these possible biases in follower perceptions. It would not be appropriate, however, to ask followers who make a claim of bullying to complete a questionnaire to assess their level of suspicion or their general view of leaders abuse of power. 
   
   Investigators of bullying claims need to follow objective and fair procedures and to intervene where supervisors demonstrate abusive behaviour. There is some evidence that indicates that perceptions of bullying may trigger a cycle of bullying behaviour (a self-fulfilling prophesy) if not dealt with. Being aware of possible biases that may influence a followers’ judgment is one of many factors that should be considered.

2. Feedback on 360 Leadership; Obtaining ratings of a leader on established dimensions of leadership by subordinates, peers, and supervisors (referred to as 360 feedback) is used extensively by organisations. A leader undergoing a 360 review often has a dilemma whether to ask people to be a rater who have a strong negative view about him or her. It may be useful for people administering 360 feedback to explain to participants and followers in 360 process that a trait of suspicion and a general negative view of leader use of power may result in lower ratings.
   
   The authors of this research suggest that questions could be added to 360 leadership measures to indicate the level of suspicion of raters and their implicit view of leaders’ abuse of power. While this could be a useful factor in 360 measurement, the representation of rater responses to these questions would require careful consideration.

   It would also be useful for raters to be given more guidance on how to objectively rate a leader’s skill and behaviours and to be aware that unconscious biases such as suspicion and a negative view of leader abuse of power may affect their perceptions and ratings.