One size doesn’t fit all: the influence of supervisors’ power tactics and subordinates’ need for cognitive closure on burnout and stress

Abstract

The present research investigated the notion of fit between supervisors’ power tactics and subordinates’ need for cognitive closure (NFCC) on subordinates’ burnout and stress. Subordinates who tend to avoid ambiguity (high NFCC) were expected to experience relatively less burnout (Study 1) and stress (Study 2) if their supervisors utilize harsh (controlling and unequivocal) power tactics and more burnout and stress if their supervisors utilize soft (autonomy-supportive and equivocal) power tactics. In contrast, it was expected that subordinates who avoid firm and binding conclusions (low NFCC) would experience relatively less burnout and stress if their supervisors use soft power tactics and more burnout and stress if they use harsh power tactics. Two studies conducted in diverse organizational settings supported these hypotheses. Collectively, these results support the conclusion that soft (vs. harsh) power tactics are not always associated with better (vs. worse) organizational outcomes. Theoretical and practical implications for organizations are discussed.

Keywords:

• burnout
• stress
• power
• need for cognitive closure

Notes

1. Experimental evidence and case studies in management suggest that the reciprocity norm is a potent method for acquiring and maintaining power (e.g., Goranson & Berkowitz, 1966; Gouldner, 1960; Kotter, 1979; Regan, 1971). Reciprocation wariness has been found to influence the exchange of resources in interpersonal relationships (Cotterell, Eisenberger, & Speicher, 1992; Eisenberger, Cotterell, & Marvel, 1987) and is thus conceived of as a harsh power tactic.

2. The need for closure is a distinct construct from the desire for control. The former refers to an epistemic motivation involved in the formation of judgments (subjective knowledge), whereas the latter pertains to the striving for social dominance.

3. Multiple regression analyses were also conducted on each Burnout inventory’s subscales. These analyses yielded similar results to the overall index of burnout. Consequently, we comment solely on the latter.