REFLECTIONS ON THE USE OF POWER IN THE ARMY:

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT ON ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SOLDIER

by

Janice Davis-Harrison

FRANK DECARO, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

JANICE SPANGENBURG, PhD, Committee Member

DAVID BALCH, PhD, Committee Member

William A. Reed, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

February 2012
 UMI Number: 3498085

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3498085
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Janice Davis-Harrison, 2012
 Abstract

An influx of uses of power and authority adorn headline news reports. Many of the

headlines are aimed at reporting corporate America‘s mishaps with chief executive

officers and their mishandling of investors‘ finances. In recent times, reports of power

and its use have come to the forefront when analyzing unit readiness in the U.S. armed

forces. In assessing the use of power and the effect it has on soldier commitment, the

purpose of this study was to gain insight on how retired U.S. Army soldiers perceived

power to be used within Army organizations. The Organizational Commitment

Questionnaire, Special Events in the Workplace, and Job Description Index were

questionnaires employed during this study. The results of the study indicated that

superiors were most responsible for experienced nonphysical abuse in the workplace and

the effect of that abuse on subordinates was negative. However, the vast majority of

respondents indicated that they were satisfied with their job and there was no significant

difference in the level of organizational commitment for the impact of nonphysical abuse

categories. In fact, most respondents indicated that they had high levels of organizational

commitment. Insights from this study might provide U.S. Army personnel with data

necessary to train leaders on how to use power effectively to gain compliance, thereby

creating a positive organizational culture.

 Dedication

I first dedicate this work to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for without him I am

nothing, but with him I can do all things. In addition, I dedicate this work to my mother,

the late Mrs. Clara Mae Davis, the ultimate businesswoman who taught me the joy of

business management as she flawlessly managed a household of seven of her own

children and a neighborhood of countless others. To my father, the late Mr. James Davis

Sr., I dedicate this work to you as I will forever remain the ―Daddy‘s Girl‖ I had become

during our quiet times on the porch. Finally, to my eldest sister, Mrs. Marie Davis

Clower, I dedicate this work to you, as you have always dedicated so much of your time

and love to me. I thank you for continuing to blaze the path of family values set forth by

our parents. I am proud of our heritage in love, family, and Christianity and may we all

continue to prosper as we each fulfill God‘s purpose for our lives.

iii
 Acknowledgments

To my husband, Mr. Michael J. Harrison, words cannot express the love and sheer

unbridled affection I have for you. You have been a constant reminder of what love

should be and has been for the past 19 years of marriage. You have always supported me

in my endeavors and in my pursuit of this dissertation you have been phenomenal. You

stayed up with me late nights; taught me to laugh when I wanted to cry, and wiped my

tears when all else failed; you motivated me when I felt like giving up and provided

numerous cups of hot chocolate to help me make it through. I thank you and I love you!

To my children, Ms. Destinee C. Harrison, Ms. Raven N. Harrison, and Mr.

Michael J. Harrison II, thank you all for providing me with an outlet by excelling in your

own individual endeavors. As I supported each of you, it gave me a stress-free avenue

from which to escape my own hectic schedule. I love you all and I am very proud and

very blessed to be your mother.

To my family; siblings, Mrs. Marie Davis Clower, Mr. James Davis Jr, Ms.

Marilyn D. Davis, Ms. Loria A. Davis, Mr. Calvin Davis, Ms. Carolyn Gilbert, and to my

niece, Ms. Yolanda M. Dixon; I love and thank each of you as you have made me the

person I am today. Your love and support does not go unnoticed and I pray that each of

you know just how special you are to me and how grateful I am to have you in my life.

To my friends; thank you for the confidence you show in me, the support you gave me

and the heartfelt wishes you bestowed upon me. May GOD bless you all!

To my mentor, Dr. Frank DeCaro, thank you for your support and encouragement

as you guided me through this process. I will forever be grateful to you for your

mentorship. To my committee members, Dr. Janice Spangenburg and Dr. David Balch,

iv
thank you for the patience and professionalism you demonstrated during this pursuit of

my lifelong dream.

v
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................. iv

List of Tables ......................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ......................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

Introduction to the Problem .................................................................................... 1

Background of the Study ........................................................................................ 2

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 3

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 4

Rationale ................................................................................................................. 5

Research Questions and Hypotheses ...................................................................... 7

Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 9

Definition of Terms............................................................................................... 10

Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................... 11

Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 13

Abuse of Power ..................................................................................................... 14

Organizational Commitment ................................................................................. 22

Goal Assignment and Commitment ...................................................................... 26

Power Bases and Compliance ............................................................................... 28

Power Bases and Task Implementation ................................................................ 29

Power and Subordinate Behavioral Implications .................................................. 32

Gaps in Existing Literature on Power and Commitment ...................................... 36

vi
 Previous Research Design Methodology .............................................................. 38

Online Versus Traditional Survey Techniques ..................................................... 43

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 46

Research Design.................................................................................................... 46

Sample................................................................................................................... 47

Instrumentation Measures ..................................................................................... 50

Data Collection Methodology ............................................................................... 51

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 53

Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 54

Generalizability ..................................................................................................... 57

Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ............................................... 60

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 60

Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 60

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 61

Summary ............................................................................................................... 79

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 80

Participants ............................................................................................................ 80

Summary of Findings and Practical Implications ................................................. 80

Need for Future Research ..................................................................................... 83

Recommendations ................................................................................................. 84

Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 86

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 88

vii
APPENDIX A. ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (OCQ) ... 95

APPENDIX B. SPECIAL EVENTS IN THE WORKPLACE ......................................... 97

APPENDIX C. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE................................................... 99

APPENDIX D. JOB DESCRIPTION INDEX ............................................................... 101

viii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Gender of Respondents ....................................................................................... 61

Table 2. Age of Respondents ............................................................................................ 62

Table 3. Education of Respondents After High School .................................................... 62

Table 4. Frequency of Nonphysical Abuse ....................................................................... 63

Table 5. Frequency of Physical Abuse ............................................................................. 64

Table 6. Chi-Square Analysis for Frequency of Nonphysical and Physical Abuse (N = 78)

........................................................................................................................................... 65

Table 7. Impact of Nonphysical Abuse............................................................................. 69

Table 8. Impact of Physical Abuse ................................................................................... 69

Table 9. Chi-Square Analysis for Impact of Nonphysical and Physical Abuse (n = 61) . 71

Table 10. JDI Results ........................................................................................................ 72

Table 11. Actor of Nonphysical Abuse............................................................................. 74

Table 12. Actor of Physical Abuse ................................................................................... 74

Table 13. Chi-Square Analysis for Actor of Nonphysical and Physical Abuse (N = 78) 74

Table 14. Respondents‘ Organizational Commitment Scores .......................................... 76

Table 15. Mean Organizational Commitment Score for the Nonphysical Abuse

Categories ......................................................................................................................... 78

Table 16. ANOVA for Mean Organizational Commitment Score ................................... 78

ix
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Frequency of occurrence of nonphysical abuse for males and females. ........... 66

Figure 2. Frequency of occurrence of physical abuse for males and females. ................. 66

Figure 3. Frequency of nonphysical abuse by age group.................................................. 67

Figure 4. Frequency of physical abuse by age group........................................................ 67

Figure 5. Impact of nonphysical abuse after removal of respondents who had never

experienced abuse. ............................................................................................................ 70

Figure 6. Impact of physical abuse after removal of respondents who had never

experienced abuse. ............................................................................................................ 71

Figure 7. Histogram for mean organizational commitment score. .................................. 77

x
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

U.S. Army soldiers are brave men and women fighting to protect their country.

They often work in excruciating circumstances and perform seemingly impossible tasks.

Nonetheless, and more often than not, they meet those expectations and surpass them

despite overwhelming odds. Superiors and subordinates share these experiences and

have come to expect and even accept the fact that no soldier can perform the mission

alone. However, superiors and subordinates do not share the power to direct actions

necessary to accomplish these missions. The use of power in Army organizations is a

fundamental aspect of mission accomplishment, and how soldiers perceive the use of

power may be a fundamental aspect of their organizational commitment.

According to Chowdhury (as cited in Merriman, 2005), ―Mutual commitment of

an employer and employee will be one of the most important factors for a 21st century

organization‖ (p. 3). Merriman (2005) explored employee commitment and

organizational performance in a case study of high-technology start-ups and found that

employee commitment has an effect on organizational performance. Perhaps, as

explained by Merriman (2005), Chowdhury‘s declaration and insight into organizational

commitment was built on Meyer and Allen‘s (1997) belief that level of commitment is an

accurate predictor of both work effort and work performance.

The extent of individuals‘ dedication to work and devotion to the organization

they serve lends itself to the enhancement of job performance (Merriman, 2005). These

1
are critical aspects of meeting required organizational objectives, and unquestionably

military objectives are typically met when a collective group of individuals executes tasks

on one accord, and it takes total dedication and unwavering commitment to do so. It is

this commitment and the effect uses of power may have on soldier commitment that

served as the motivation for this study.

Background of the Study

According to Mintzberg (as in Vrendenburgh & Brender, 1998) individuals with

power attempt to influence others through several avenues: to include formal authority,

cultural norms, and organizational politics (p. 1338). Vrendenburgh and Brender (1998)

believed that for the most part, exercise of power involves hierarchical authority, and it is

this authority that can lead to hierarchical abuse. Hierarchical abuse of authority occurs

when the exercise of power by superiors becomes ―abusive to subordinates‖

(Vrendenburgh & Brender, 1998, p. 1339) and the outcome of that abuse becomes ―both

harmful to dignity and dysfunctional for performance or deserved rewards‖

(Vrendenburgh & Brender, 1998, p. 1339).

Vrendenburgh and Brender (1998) noted that hierarchical abuse of power was

located within the relationship between organizational superiors and subordinates, and

described from the perspective of the subordinate. Donnelly (2001, p. 17) referenced

Hornstein‘s and Vrendenburgh and Brender‘s characterizations of superiors who were

perceived to abuse power by declaring that they give false testimony, hinder actions that

were external to the work organization through intimidation for noncompliance, implicate

subordinates in case of mishaps, and practice cronyism. Hornstein (as cited in Donnelly,

2001) described abusive leaders as poor managers, possessing an arrogant and dictatorial

2
leadership style. Conger (1990, p. 47) declared that abusive leaders were often

characterized by those who misuse authority, place personal goals before those of the

organization, unsuccessfully manage particulars of the organization, concentrate on the

superficial, were unavailable during stressful periods, and take undue credit for the

successes of others.

El-Ansary and Stern (as cited in Leonidou, Talias, & Leonidou, 2007, p. 93) noted

that the notion of power indicates the capacity of one party to control the actions of

others. However, Emerson (1962) stated, ―It would appear that the power to control or

influence the other resides in control over the things he values. . . . [I]n short, power

resides implicitly in the other‘s dependency‖ (p. 32). Whether it is the dominance of

superiors or the reluctance of subordinates to question authority for personal gain, power

and its use in military organizations remain a topic for discussion, as previous literature

revealed that it has an effect on employees‘ level of commitment.

Statement of the Problem

Officers, warrant officers, and noncommissioned officers are subordinate to

members within their command. Power, the possession of controlling influence, as

defined by Gupta and Sharma (2008), has different bases of power. Gupta and Sharma

defined bases of power as the resources and characteristics a person has in order to be

able to influence others. Within Army organizations, a dilemma may exist with the

soldier‘s perception on the use of power by Army personnel. When reality conflicts with

expectations, perceptions on uses of power may affect soldiers‘ commitment to the

organization, especially if power is perceived to be misused.

3
 Donnelly (2001) conducted a qualitative descriptive case study that involved

exploring hierarchical abuse of power from subordinates‘ viewpoint. Donnelly revealed

the findings of the study concurred with Vrendenburgh and Brender‘s theoretical model

on the abuse of power, which found that practicing hierarchical abuse of power would

have a negative impact on subordinates‘ individual dignity and would, in the process,

establish obstacles to their performance and rewards (p. 166).

Limited research has been conducted to address hierarchical abuse of power in the

U.S. Army. Donnelly (2001) noted that hierarchical abuse of power is difficult to study

because the ―very climate of intimidation and fear described by victims of hierarchical

abuse of power has a chilling effect on subordinates, preventing them from speaking

candidly without fear of retaliation‖ (p. 175). In addition to Donnelly‘s research on

hierarchical abuse of power, Keashly, Trott, and MacLean (1994) conducted a study to

determine the affect abusive, nonphysical behaviors in the workplace had on job

satisfaction and employee responses to these behaviors (p. 341).

This study adds to the body of knowledge because the perceived use of power was

described by retired U.S. Army soldiers who have had a chance to reflect on their active

duty service. Because of possible fear of repercussions, the survey participants did not

include soldiers still serving on active duty.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to further the investigation on uses of power by

examining them from the perspective of retired U.S. Army soldiers. In addition, the

purpose of the study was to examine what, if any, effect perceived uses of power had on

soldier commitment to the organization in which they served.

4
 The practical purpose of the research was to provide U.S. Army senior leadership

with information pertaining to commitment issues within U.S. Army commands.

Leadership can use this information to educate all soldiers on the impact of perceived

uses of power. The practical purpose of this study can also be used to address

commitment issues related to uses of power. In addition, the study can ―serve as a mirror

for those who are practicing hierarchical, interpersonal abuse of power . . . [by] validating

and encouraging behaviors detrimental to an organization‖ (Donnelly, 2001, p. 173).

Rationale

Admiral Arleigh A. Burke (as cited in Charlton, 2002) stated, ―Any commander

who fails to exceed his authority is not of much use to his subordinates‖ (p. 45).

Advocating misuse of power or exceeding one‘s authority is most likely not the Army‘s

intent. However, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) can appear to give

carte blanche privileges to superiors performing in the line of duty. The UCMJ, enacted

by Congress in 1950 replacing the Articles of War, ―is a federal law and the basis of our

military justice system. It determines what conduct is criminal, establishes the various

types of courts, and sets forth the procedures to be followed in the administration of

military justice‖ (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1992, p. 1-1).

Cornyn (2008) stated courts have traditionally viewed the military as a

―specialized society‖ (p. 463) that allows them to limit the amount of free speech to

which service members are entitled. Courts have allowed the military to restrict the

speech of service members to the degree deemed necessary to ―preserve order and

discipline‖ (Cornyn, 2008, p. 463). However, Article 138 of the UCMJ states,

5
 The right of all citizens to express their feelings freely and openly has only those

limitations necessary to protect the rights of society. Soldiers have the same basic

rights and these rights must be consistent with good order and discipline and

national security. (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1992, p. 10-1)

Perhaps Article 138‘s measure of good order fueled critics‘ perception of the

Army‘s willingness to stand firm on issues of importance. Huntington (1957) stated,

―The Army developed an image of itself as the governments‘ obedient handyman

performing without question or hesitation the jobs assigned to it: the country‘s general

servant, well-disciplined, obedient, performing civil functions‖ (p. 261). Conceivably,

this mentality had been passed down from superiors to subordinates and had become the

foundation for which perceived misuses of power were perpetrated.

Keashly et al. (1994) surveyed 59 student employees to document cases of abuse

of power in work organizations. According to Keashly et al., ―Abusive behaviors in the

workplace refer to hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors (excluding physical contact)

directed by one or more persons towards another that are aimed at undermining the other

to ensure compliance‖ (p. 342). Keashly et al. used four subscales of revised Job

Description Index (JDI) questionnaires to determine employees‘ level of job satisfaction

(p. 346). In addition, Keashly et al. used the Special Events in the Workplace

questionnaire to determine the extent to which nonsexual nonphysical abusive behavior

affected employees‘ job satisfaction (p. 346).

The results of the study were conclusive and indicated that though most

employees ―had very positive interactions at work, exposure to abusive behavior was

familiar, was relatively frequent, and had a negative impact on the targets‖ (Keashly et

6
al., 1994, p. 341). Keashly et al.‘s study and those like it were the basis for this study to

understand to what degree, if any, perceived uses of power had on soldier commitment.

Previous literature exists that focuses on use of authority and organizational

commitment. Other studies focus on power and leadership. However, few studies have

been conducted on the use of power and the effect it has on commitment in organizations

where lack of commitment could have dire consequences. Previous studies examined

commitment from the usual business perspective; however, this research involved

exploring commitment from a military point of view. This aspect of the study was highly

significant because the stakes for lags in commitment for soldiers, especially during

wartime, may be considerably higher than for individuals in for-profit organizations.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The research questions for the study were designed to measure retired U.S. Army

soldiers‘ perceptions on the uses of power in Army organizations. In addition, the

questions were designed to determine whether retired U.S. Army soldiers‘ level of

commitment to the organization had been affected by purported uses of power.

Commitment was the dependent variable (effect) and use of power was the independent

variable (cause). The first three research questions were derived from the study

conducted by Keashly et al. (1994) using the Special Events in the Workplace

questionnaire.

R1. To what extent do workers experience abusive behaviors in the workplace?

H10: Workers do not experience abusive behavior in the workplace.

H1a: Workers do experience abusive behaviors in the workplace.

7
 R2: What is the relationship between the impact of abusive behaviors and the

workers‘ job satisfaction?

H20: There is no positive correlation between abusive behavior in the workplace

and job satisfaction.

H2a: There are positive correlations between abusive behavior in the workplace

and job satisfaction.

R3: Who are the actors of these behaviors (superior, coworker, or subordinate)?

H30: Subordinates were not the targets of abusive behavior in the workplace and

superiors were not the actors.

H3a: Subordinates were the targets of abusive behaviors in the workplace and

superiors were the actors.

The researcher used the 48-event instrument used by Keashly et al. (1994) to

determine events ―that may occur between people in the workplace‖ (p. 346). Keashly et

al. selected the 48 events from three sources.

The main source was the family violence literature where there are several well-

developed scales that assess the presence and intensity of nonphysical abusive

behaviors (e.g., Abusive Behaviors Inventory, Shepard & Campbell, 1992;

Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory, Tolman, 1989; Conflict Tactics

Scale, Strauss, 1979). (Keashly et al., 1994, p. 346)

A revised version of the JDI used by Keashly et al. (1994) and developed by Smith,

Kendall, and Hulin (1969) was used to assess workers‘ level of job satisfaction.

The fourth question was designed to determine the impact abusive behaviors had

on workers‘ commitment.

8
 R4: To what extent is the target‘s commitment to the organization affected by

these abusive behaviors?

H40: The target‘s commitment to the organization was not affected by these

behaviors.

H4a: The alternative hypothesis was that the target‘s commitment was affected by

these behaviors.

The researcher used the 15-question Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

(OCQ) developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) to assess workers‘

organizational commitment. A. Mathieu, Bruvold, and Ritchey (2000) used the OCQ to

determine the organizational commitment of Canadian salespeople in the pharmaceutical

industry. Mowday et al. (as cited in Mathieu et al., 2000) employed this instrument to

have commitment measured in three related facets: ―(1) a strong belief in and acceptance

of the organization‘s goals and values; (2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on

behalf of the organization; and (3) a strong desire to maintain membership in the

organization‖ (p. 130). In addition, the researcher used the JDI, as did Keashly et al.

(1994), to determine the workers‘ level of job satisfaction.

Significance of the Study

The study on perceived uses of power in Army organizations and the effect that

power has on soldier commitment has practical uses for both superiors and subordinates.

The significance of this study was to enhance and improve leadership development at all

levels by providing relevant information into the mind-set of soldiers, from the soldiers‘

perspective. The advantage of gaining this information through the lens of the soldier

was vital as it resulted in a more detailed and realistic view of commitment from the

9
participants‘ view. Superiors can use the information to mentor junior leaders on the

effect uses of authority have on soldiers.

Merriman (2005, p. 9) contended that a study on employee commitment and its

effect on performance would be instrumental in crafting resolutions that could potentially

enhance commitment levels to resolve internal conflicts. U.S. Army superiors can use

the findings of this study as a base from which to begin the restorative process of soldier

dedication, loyalty, and commitment to the organization they serve. Acknowledging the

findings of the study and implementing preventative measures to deter misuses of power

can assist leaders in Army organizations with gaining compliance from U.S. Army

soldiers while increasing soldier commitment.

Definition of Terms

Commitment: Porter (as cited in Buchanan, 1974) defined commitment as ―The

willingness of an employee to exert high levels of effort on behalf of the organization, a

strong desire to stay with the organization, and an acceptance of its major goals and

values‖ (p. 533).

Military occupational specialty: ―Numerical system used by the Marine Corps

and the Army to identify job skills of an individual‖ (Arkin, Handler, Morrissey, &

Walsh, 1990, p. 415).

Noncommissioned officer: ―An enlisted soldier in a pay grade of E-4 or higher,

excluding specialist, usually used to fill leadership positions‖ (Arkin et al., 1990, p. 507).

Officer: ―An officer holding a grade and office under a commission issued by the

President. In the Army, those officers in a grade of second lieutenant or higher are

commissioned‖ (Arkin et al., 1990, p. 507).

10
 Performance: A ―work-related outcome that refers to attainment of organizational

objectives‖ (Sharma, Borna, & Stearns, 2009, p. 253).

Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): ―Code of laws enacted by Congress

(10 U.S.C. 801-940) which govern the conduct of all persons in the Armed Forces or

[those] subject to military law‖ (Arkin et al., 1990, p. 704).

Warrant officer: ―An officer holding a warrant issued by the Secretary of his or

her service used to fill specialized technical positions above the enlisted level. A warrant

officer ranks below second lieutenant or ensign, but above cadet‖ (Arkin et al., 1990, p.

507).

Assumptions and Limitations

The assumptions and limitations of this study intertwined. The researcher

assumed that respondents would answer questions frankly and truthfully without

hesitation. However, limitations to this study existed because it is plausible that retirees

were reluctant to discuss uses of power within Army organizations openly and honestly.

The commitment and camaraderie associated with being a U.S. Army soldier may have

disinclined participants to shed negative light on an organization to which they were loyal

for so long. Even though participants were no longer serving on active duty, they may

still have been reluctant to speak candidly due to concerns of retaliation.

Conceptual Framework

The study was conducted using quantitative methodology. The study involved

exploring the causal relationship between perceived uses of power and soldier

commitment. The participants in this study were retired U.S. Army soldiers who had

served in U.S. Army organizations. Participants had served in U.S. Army organizations

11
for at least 20 years. The participants were expected to provide information on uses of

power during the course of their military service.

The conceptual framework explained the crux of the data to be analyzed and was

designed to study the causal relationship between perceived uses of power and soldier

commitment. Army regulations outline specifically who reports to whom. Most times

this relationship does not present problems. However, there are times when perceived

uses of power negatively affect the superior and subordinate relationships and may, in

fact, have an effect on organizational commitment; this is the phenomenon explored

during the course of this study.

12
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Power is a concept that has many different meanings. Tertiary, secondary, and

primary resources provide a wealth of information on the definition of power as it

pertains to leadership. Gupta and Sharma (2008) defined power as the resources and

characteristics a person has to influence others. French and Raven (as cited by Frost &

Moussavi, 1992) classified bases of power into categories, namely legitimate, reward,

coercive, expert and referent (p. 10). Pfeffer (1992, p. 1) stated power has several

different aspects that include the ability to influence behavior, to alter or possibly change

courses of events, to prevail withstanding conflict, and to persuade people to do things

that are uncharacteristic.

Hildebrand and Markovic (2007, p. 191) contended that power has been the

subject of debate for a number of years and remains so. Bateson and Haley (as cited in

Hildebrand & Markovic, 2007) incorporated the power debate into systematic literature

when it was used as the framework for family therapy discussions (p. 191). Bateson and

Haley (as cited in Hildebrand & Markovic, 2007) noted,

The essence of this debate, as we understand it, was the question of whether

power exists or is a myth; is it an ‗epistemological error‘ of linear thinking

(Bateson 1972) or a social and interpersonal reality as Haley (1976) suggested,

arguing that power struggles are inevitable components of any relationship. (p.

191)

13
 However defined, power has a tremendous effect on organizational structure and

can positively or negatively affect the environment, depending on individuals exercising

the rights of power bestowed upon them. Power and the perceived use of power by those

in Army organizations led the researcher to question its ultimate effect, if any, on soldier

commitment.

Several authors have explored power, its concepts, commitment concerns, and

subordinate behavioral implications. Donnelly‘s (2001) qualitative case study explored

the hierarchical abuse of power from subordinates‘ perspective. Leonidou et al. (2007)

examined the effect exercised powers have on building trust and honing the commitment

it takes to build the relationships necessary to be successful in cross-border industrial

buyer and seller interactions (p. 92). Steyrer, Schiffinger, and Lang (2008, p. 3) explored

the dual purposes of commitment. First, Steyrer et al. studied the effect of executive

leadership on the organizational commitment of subordinate managers; second, the

authors sought to determine the effect of organizational commitment on company

performance. Sue-Chan and Ong (2002) sought to determine what, if any, effect goal

assignment had on goal commitment, self-efficacy, and the performance of individuals

working in power distance organizations (p. 1140). Keashly et al. (1994) studied the

effect of abusive behavior in the workplace.

Abuse of Power

Tepper (as cited in Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007) defined abusive supervision as

―subordinates‘ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the

sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact‖

(p. 178). Ashforth (as cited in Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007) described abusive managers

14
as ―those who callously and arbitrarily use their power and authority to mistreat

employees‖ (p. 1159).

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Military Whistleblower Protection and

Reprisal Act is a law designed to protect members of the Armed Forces by defending

their right to have protected communication with a member of Congress; Inspector

General; a member of a DOD audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement

organization; or any other person, including those in the members‘ chain of command

without fear of retribution (DOD, 2000, p. 2). Paragraph 4.4 under the Military

Whistleblower Protection and Reprisal Act states, ―No person may take or threaten to

take an unfavorable personnel action, or withhold or threaten to withhold a favorable

personnel action, in reprisal against any member of the Armed Forces for making or

preparing a protected communication‖ (DOD, 2000, p. 3). Any person failing to comply

with this regulation will be in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ: ―Failure to obey order

or regulation‖ (DOD, 2000, p. 3).

Article 138 under the UCMJ states,

A member of the Armed Forces may submit an Article 138 complaint for any act

or omission by the member‘s commanding officer that the member believes to be

a wrong, and for which the member has requested redress and been refused.

(Army Regulation [AR] 27-10, 2005, p. 95)

A wrong, as defined by AR 27-10, is a

discretionary act or omission by a commanding officer, under color of Federal

military authority that adversely affects the complainant personally and that is in

violation of law or regulation; beyond the legitimate authority of that

15
 commanding officer; arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; or materially

unfair. (AR 27-10, 2005, p. 94)

UCMJ Article 138 (Chapter 13) gives soldiers the right to petition any member of

Congress about a complaint (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1992, p. 10-1).

Commanders are cautioned not to interfere with or try to discourage a soldier from

exercising his or her right to ―complain and request correction of a grievance against his

[or her] commander‖ (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1992, p. 10-1). Though

these laws and many like them are designed to protect both soldiers and civilians from

abuse of power, studies show that misuses of power still exist in organizations.

Donnelly (2001) conducted a descriptive case study for which the setting was a

private church-related liberal arts university. The qualitative, descriptive case study

involved investigating the hierarchical abuse of power as perceived by subordinates.

Donnelly stated it was subordinates‘ perception of organizational abuse (p. 28) and their

belief that the institution‘s president was practicing hierarchical abuse of power that

guided the direction of the study. In addition, Donnelly adopted concepts from

Vrendenburgh and Brender‘s hierarchical abuse of power process model.

Vrendenburgh and Brender (as cited in Donnelly, 2001) identified disrespect for

individual dignity and obstacles to job performance as the two dimensions of power that

lend themselves to hierarchical abuse (p. 149). Though several propositions to test this

theory were proposed, Donnelly (2001) deemed Propositions 1, 2, and 7 as most

appropriate when analyzing hierarchical abuse allegations of an institution‘s president.

Vrendenburgh and Brender‘s Proposition 1 (as cited in Donnelly, 2001) submitted that it

is the subordinate‘s perspective that should be taken into consideration when defining

16
hierarchical abuse of power because it is his or her dignity or performance that is

damaged (p. 150). Proposition 2 claimed that when hierarchical abuse of power persists

within an organization, it has the propensity to become standard practice (Donnelly,

2001, p.150). Proposition 7 listed direct pressure, upward appeal, exchange, ingratiation,

and inspiration as strategies used by power holders to abuse authority (Donnelly, 2001, p.

150).

Donnelly (2001) noted several subordinate responses supported Proposition 1.

One respondent revealed that he experienced feelings of self-doubt when confronted by

the university‘s president to support schemes or plans that ―lacked integrity‖ (Donnelly,

2001, p. 150). Another respondent stated he was remorseful after illicitly complying to

alter termination procedures for two faculty members (Donnelly, 2001, p. 151). The

respondent claimed ―his cooperation was coerced under the threat of great harm to the

institution‖ (Donnelly, 2001, p. 151). Additional data validated Proposition 1 as

respondents ―expressed feelings of powerlessness, helplessness, remorse, professional

insecurity and humiliation‖ (Donnelly, 2001, p. 153).

Vrendenburgh and Brender‘s Proposition 2 (as cited in Donnelly, 2001) dealt with

the eventual formation of unit norms with repeated acts of power abuse (p. 158).

Donnelly (2001) described unit norms as ―organizational practices, procedures or

standards developing over time in a given organizational unit‖ (p. 158). Vrendenburgh

and Brender (as cited in Donnelly, 2001) believed the frequent abuses of power, when

observed by subordinates, are viewed as standard practice and build a degree of

acceptance and expectation, eventually leading to the formation of unit norms (p. 159).

Vrendenburgh and Brender (as cited in Donnelly, 2001, p. 159) stated that the conceptual

17
model of hierarchical abuse, in time, leads subordinates to address ―abusive

circumstances‖ using one of three strategies: challenge, ignore or avoid, or subterfuge.

Each of these strategies was implemented in Donnelly‘s (2001) case study of hierarchical

abuse.

Donnelly (2001) explained that the university president was challenged by one of

his subordinates early in the process. When it was discovered that the university

president denied the promotion and tenure of a faculty member that had been

preapproved by other deans and departments, he was challenged by a subordinate

(Donnelly, 2001, p. 159). The president was forced to defend his position and when he

could not convincingly do so, the faculty member was eventually promoted and given

tenure (Donnelly, 2001, p. 159). Though the reward for the faculty member in question

was great, Donnelly believed that the altercation between the president and the challenger

may have been negatively and possibly irrevocably affected (p. 160).

A second strategy subordinates use to address abusive circumstances were to

ignore or avoid the abuse (Donnelly, 2001, p. 160). This strategy was implemented when

the university‘s president transferred the school‘s associate dean without question or

protest (Donnelly, 2001). Though appropriate documentation to support the transfer was

never presented, subordinate staff ignored the warning signs of possible abuse and signed

admissions letters approving the transfer (Donnelly, 2001, p. 160).

Vrendenburgh and Brender (as cited in Donnelly, 2001), defined the third and

final strategy subordinates use to address hierarchical abuse as subterfuge. Dworkin and

Baucus (as cited in Donnelly, 2001) stated that subterfuge was ―similar to internal whistle

blowing in that persons who perceive themselves to be aggrieved seek to inform others

18
related to the organization who might be able to assist them‖ (p. 160). Faculty members

confided in each other and secretly sought out others they believed could assist them

(Donnelly, 2001, p. 160). It was this subterfuge that led to organized coalitions, which

led to the president‘s resignation (Donnelly, 2001, p. 161).

Vrendenburgh and Brender (as cited in Donnelly, 2001) denoted in their model of

hierarchical abuse Proposition 7 which is the third and final proposition. Donnelly

(2001) explored the degree to which subordinates felt the university‘s president abused

his power. Proposition 7 proposed that those in power are able to effectively abuse it by

putting pressure on subordinates, exchanging favors, and promising positions of higher

authority within the organization (Donnelly, 2001, p. 162). This proposition manifested

itself when the president effectively collected a loyal inner circle, controlled information

resources, and intimidated subordinates (Donnelly, 2001, p. 162). Subordinates felt

ingratiated to the president because they exchanged ―high-paying, high-status, high-

power positions for loyalty and complicity‖ (Donnelly, 2001, p. 163).

Propositions 1, 2, and 7 of Vrendenburgh and Brender‘s conceptual model of

hierarchical abuse supported Donnelly‘s (2001) findings during the investigation of

hierarchical abuse in the educational institution. Donnelly stated the findings concurred

with Vrendenburgh and Brender and stated that when hierarchical abuse of power is

practiced, it affects the dignity of subordinates and impedes work performance. Gunn

(1995) described this as an undesirable state because hierarchical abuse of power

―establishes an adversarial relationship between superiors and subordinates undermining

the collaboration, cooperation and teamwork necessary for achieving high output‖ (p.

29).

19
 Donnelly (2001) stated findings would add to the ―embryonic literature

empirically examining organizational subordinates in the context of hierarchical abuse of

power‖ (p. 178). Specifically, the findings would increase knowledge of the impact of

hierarchical abuse of power from a subordinate perspective (Donnelly, 2001). This study

serves ―as a mirror for those who are practicing hierarchical, interpersonal abuse of

power, and are numbered by the conventional wisdom predicated by ‗rational‘

management practices, validating and encouraging behaviors detrimental to an

organization‖ (Donnelly, 2001, p. 173). In addition, organizational leaders can benefit

from this study as it furthers the recognition of the hierarchical abuse of power in the

workplace (Donnelly, 2001). The prevention of the hierarchical of abuse of power may

be desirable in promoting healthier, more productive work organizations (Donnelly,

2001).

Donnelly (2001) explained that there were several implications to the study and

contended that they are essentially based on the assumption that it was ―morally desirable

to respect individual dignity‖ (p. 172). Donnelly (p. 172) also noted that it was equally

important to ensure subordinates are operating in environments that value honesty.

The events of this case provide institutions of higher education with an argument

for closely scrutinizing their internal operations for the purpose of enhancing

organizational efficacy, the preservation of academic reputations and process, and

the support of the dignity of organizational subordinates. (Donnelly, 2001, p.

172)

Donnelly (2001) stated that the study of hierarchical abuse of power has

limitations because the perpetrator has access to the organization‘s source of power and

20
controls information and resources. The phenomenon was difficult to study because the

―very climate of intimidation and fear described by victims of hierarchical abuse of

power has a chilling effect on subordinates, preventing them from speaking candidly

without fear of retaliation‖ (Donnelly, 2001, p. 175). In this respect, Donnelly presented

a compelling argument because in most cases, those who were better suited to provide

details of abuse were still employed by the organizations about which they were

reporting.

Hoel and Cooper (as cited in Tepper, 2007) stated research to date ―suggests that

seventy-five percent of incidents of workplace bullying are perpetrated by hierarchically

superior agents against subordinate targets‖ (p. 267). Tepper (2007) concluded that many

times supervisors mistreat subordinates for reasons other than to cause injury (p. 265). In

fact, in an attempt to solicit high performance, many supervisors mistreat subordinates as

a show of force and to ―send the message that mistakes will not be tolerated‖ (Tepper,

2007, p. 265). Ashforth (as cited in Tepper, 2007) referred to this type of behavior as

petty tyranny, when superiors use power ―oppressively, capriciously, and perhaps

vindictively‖ (p. 266). Ashforth (as cited in Tepper, 2007) contended petty tyranny

comprises six subdimensions, ―arbitrariness and self-aggrandizement, belittling

subordinates, lack of consideration, a forcing style of conflict resolution, discouraging

initiative, and noncontingent punishment‖ (p. 266). Additionally, Ashforth (as cited in

Tepper, 2007) stated similar to abusive supervision, petty tyranny also ―captures hostile

acts perpetrated by hierarchically superior agents‖ (p. 266).

Tepper (2007) argued that superiors who have experienced maltreatment will in

turn mistreat their subordinates because they fear committing an offense toward their own

21
perpetrating agent will evoke even further hostility (p. 269). ―Specifically, supervisors

who are inclined to abuse subordinates will express their hostility on high-negative-

affectivity subordinates, those who present themselves as weak, vulnerable, and

unwilling or unable to defend themselves‖ (Tepper, 2007, p. 269). Displaced aggression

was directed toward those the abusive superior believes to be a safer target to exhibit

antagonist behavior toward (Tepper, 2007, p. 269).

Organizational Commitment

One of the major models of organizational commitment was developed by Allen

and Meyer (1990), who conceptualized organizational commitment in terms of three

distinct dimensions: affective, continuance, and normative. Affective commitment,

labeled cohesion commitment by Kanter (1968), was ―the attachment of an individual‘s

fund of affectivity and emotion to the group‖ (p. 507). Similarly, Buchanan (1974)

viewed affective commitment as ―a partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values

of the organization to one‘s role in relation to the goals and values, and to the

organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth‖ (p. 533).

As for continuance commitment, Kanter (1968) stated, ―The individual who

makes a cognitive-continuance commitment finds that what is profitable to him is bound

up with his position in the organization . . . and that there is a profit associated with

continued participation and a cost associated with leaving‖ (p. 504). According to

Kanter, sacrifice and investment were positive and negative components, respectively,

associated with continuance commitment.

Kanter (1968) believed sacrifice, the negative aspect of continuance commitment,

required members to relinquish something as a requirement for membership (p. 505).

22
Kanter stated, ―The more it ‗costs‘ a person to do something, the more ‗valuable‘ he will

have to consider it, in order to justify the psychic ‗expense‘ and remain internally

consistent‖ (p. 505). In contrast, investment, the positive aspect of continuance

commitment, ―provides the individual with a stake in the fate of the organization; he

commits his profit to the organization, so that leaving it would be costly‖ (Kanter, 1968,

p. 506).

Normative commitment, as described by Allen and Meyer (1990), dealt with

―employees‘ feelings of obligation to remain with the organization‖ (p. 1). Wiener (as

cited in Allen & Meyer, 1990) noted the normative aspect of commitment is described as

the ―totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets

organizational goals and interests‖ (p. 3). In addition, Wiener (as cited in Allen and

Meyer, 1990) believed individuals exhibited such behaviors because ―they believe it is

the ‗right‘ and moral thing to do‖ (p. 3).

With the strong sense of selfless service and duty to country often associated with

those in the Armed Forces, normative would best describe their high level of commitment

to the organization. However, J. Mathieu and Zajac (as cited in Brockner, Tyler, Cooper-

Schieder, 1992) concluded that

Although high levels of organizational or institutional commitment are generally

beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of

prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. . .

[especially] when previously committed individuals feel that they were treated

unfavorably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or

institution (p. 241)

23
 In a case study, Steyrer et al. (2008) addressed organizational commitment as it

related to leadership behavior. Though Steyrer et al. did not expressly detail cases of

abuse, they found that leadership behavior was relevant to organizational commitment

and noted that Wilson (1995) alleged organizational commitment was affected by

―various aspects of organizational politics and leadership power‖ (p. 365).

Steyrer et al. (2008) investigated ―the effect of executive leadership behaviors on

the organizational commitment (OC) of subordinate managers and the influence of the

latter on measures of company performance‖ (p. 364). The authors conducted a study to

analyze the correlation between leadership and organizational commitment, and in doing

so, adopted theories from the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior

Effectiveness Program (GLOBE) proposed by Den Hartog, House, Hanges, and

Associates (1999), Dorfman, Hanges, and Brodbeck (2004), Holmberg and Akerblom

(2006), and Waldman et al. (2006). GLOBE investigated ―the extent to which these

everyday theories are influenced by cultural norms‖ (Steyrer et al., 2008, p. 365).

Steyrer et al. (2008) condensed 382 original leadership attributes identified by

GLOBE into a 112-item questionnaire (p. 365). However, the German version of the

questionnaire was used and contained 171 items to assess and identify global leadership

dimensions. The questionnaire was distributed among employees who were in close

contact with 38 German and 40 Austrian executives chosen for the study (Steyrer et al.,

2008). The questionnaire‘s ultimate goal was to assess how executive leadership

behaviors were perceived in their subordinates (Steyrer et al., 2008, p. 368).

Subordinate responses were consolidated and revealed six global leadership

dimensions from which to measure leadership behaviors: charismatic/value-based

24
leadership, team-oriented leadership, participative leadership, humane-oriented

leadership, autonomous leadership, and self-protective leadership (Steyrer et al., 2008, p.

365). From these leadership dimensions, Steyrer et al. (2008) proposed six hypotheses to

test the theory that leadership behavior had an effect on both organizational commitment

and performance.

Hypothesis 1 proposed that charismatic/value-based leadership was positively

related to subordinates‘ organizational commitment and that this leadership was stronger

than other leadership dimensions (Steyrer et al., 2008, p. 366). Hypothesis 2, 3, and 4

respectively proposed that team-oriented leadership, participative leadership, and

humane-oriented leadership were positively related to subordinates‘ commitment (Steyrer

et al., 2008, p. 366). In constrast, Hypothesis 5 suggested that self-protective leadership

was negatively akin to subordinates‘ organizational commitment (Steyrer et al., 2008, p.

366). Lastly, Steyrer et al. (2008, p. 366) argued that company performance is influenced

by organizational commitment.

Steyrer et al. (2008) claimed their study was conclusive and reported that

Hypotheses 1 through 5 indicated a positive relationship existed between several

leadership dimensions and subordinates‘ organizational commitment (Steyrer et al., 2008,

p. 369). With the exception of participative leadership, the connection between the two

variables leadership dimensions and organizational commitment was most prominent

when company size was taken into consideration (Steyrer et al., 2008). Steyrer et al. did

note, as posited in H1a, that leadership traits characterized as charismatic or value-based

had the strongest association with organizational commitment than any other dimension

tested (p. 369).

25
 The results of the case study clearly indicated that ―desirable leadership behavior

is positively related to subordinates‘ OC [organizational commitment], and that OC

contributes to company performance, even when analyzed in conjunction with crucial

contextual variables‖ (Steyrer et al., 2008, p. 364). Francesco and Chen (2000) found

that organizational commitment was higher among those with higher level positions

within an organization (p. 880). Moreover, Steyrer et al. (2008) posited that ―an

employee‘s commitment (at least that of the affective type) does not merely make him or

her remain with the organization irrespective of the circumstances, but also contributes to

his or her efforts on its behalf‖ (p. 366). This was significant for organizations where the

end results were geared toward sustainable monetary gains; however, it was of the utmost

importance for those serving in Army organizations where results can be a matter of life

and death.

Steyrer et al. (2008) acknowledged that methodological limitations did exist.

Shortcomings of the study were that ―all performance indicators used are single-item

measures and are based on subjective assessment, albeit they are unlikely to be seriously

distorted as a result‖ (p. 369). Steyrer et al. (2008) convincingly showed the relationship

between leadership behavior and subordinate goal commitment, but made no claim that

leadership behavior was the sole predictor of subordinate commitment issues. Sue-Chan

and Ong (2002) considered the effect of goal assignment on goal commitment.

Goal Assignment and Commitment

Sue-Chan and Ong (2002) posited that goal commitment and goal assignment are

in direct relation to the performance of individuals from different power bases. In fact,

―power distance was found to moderate the goal assignment-goal commitment

26
relationship‖ (Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002, p. 1156) and this relationship is the consequence

of intricate combinations of assignment and power distance mediated by self-efficacy.

Sue-Chan and Ong (2002) collected data from 143 Austrian university students to

investigate the effect of goal assignment on goal commitment. Sue-Chan and Ong

reported that ―the results of the current study suggest that, for these individuals, goal

commitment is the critical motivational antecedent to performance through its effect on

self-efficacy‖ (p. 1157). If ―high power distance individuals‖ (Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002, p.

1144) are unwilling to challenge normal performance targets, they would be unlikely to

reap the benefits associated with goal setting rewards, which lead ultimately to goal

commitment.

Leonidou et al. (2007) found similar results while examining the roles of

exercised power and its relation to building trust and commitment. The purpose of the

study, as described by Leonidou et al., was to ―examine the role of exercised power as

key driving forces in building trust and commitment in cross-border industrial buyer-

seller relationships, through the mediating role of conflict and satisfaction‖ (p. 93).

Leonidou et al. (2007) contended that the ―the role of power is crucial, in the

sense that, through its interactions with other constructs of the relationship atmosphere; it

can seriously affect trust and commitment‖ (p. 92). Trust and commitment are critical

predicators in establishing the connection between cross-border industrial buyers and

sellers as it relates to satisfaction. Leonidou et al. stated, ―Non-coercive power will

reduce conflict in the relationship, while, depending on its strength, it is likely to foster

satisfaction among the parties involved. These will subsequently enhance trust and

eventually lead to heightened levels of commitment‖ (p. 100).

27
 Commitment, therefore, was established as a by-product of trust and was

confirmed to provide a direct link between satisfaction and conflict resolution (Leonidou

et al., 2007). In addition, Leonidou et al. (2007) discussed the role coercive and

noncoercive powers had in encouraging commitment. However, the powers are

distributed throughout the different power bases and how superiors use them had an

effect on subordinate compliance (Gupta & Sharma, 2008). Similar to Leonidou et al.‘s

(2007) discussion on the effect coercive and noncoercive powers have on commitment,

Gupta and Sharma (2008) discussed the effect soft versus harsh bases of power had on

compliance.

Power Bases and Compliance

Gupta and Sharma (2008) conducted a quantitative study to examine several

objectives. ―One such objective was to test the effectiveness of different bases of power

and the interactions between social powers and quality of interaction between superior‖

(Gupta & Sharma, 2008, p. 1). Gupta and Sharma used the Interpersonal Power

Inventory scale developed by Raven, Schwarzwald, and Koslowsky (1998) to measure

compliance.

Gupta and Sharma (2008) formulated several hypotheses to test for a power

compliance relationship among employers and employees when harsh versus soft bases

of power were employed. The authors posited that there would be greater compliance

with soft bases of power than with harsh bases of power; compliance would increase with

higher quality of interaction; soft bases of power would evoke higher quality of

interaction, thus increasing compliance; and compliance with harsh bases of power would

only increase with low quality of interaction (Gupta & Sharma, 2008).

28
 Overall, Gupta and Sharma (2008) contended the power interaction model

revealed that an employer who was well-liked would gain greater employee compliance

even if the employer must resort to unfavorable actions to accomplish given tasks.

However, if the employer was disliked and attempted to use unfavorable strategies to

accomplish given tasks, the employer would encounter resistance as employees attempt

to stop any gains. Raven (as cited in Gupta & Sharma, 2008) ―argue that, in the latter

case, the efficacy of power using soft strategies is diminished, thereby, forcing the

disliked influencing agent to resort to harsh strategies‖ (p. 14).

Gupta and Sharma (2008) indicated the limitation of their research was that they

only considered subordinates‘ perception about bases of power and quality of interaction.

The authors stated they ―could have more faith in the results and possibility of common

method variance could have been reduced by including superiors‖ (Gupta & Sharma,

2008, p. 19). Gupta and Sharma stated that the results of the study had implications for

both researchers and practitioners because ―present findings support the assumption that

soft power sources are more effective than harsh sources inherited by the superior due to

his position in the organization‖ (p. 5). According to Gupta and Sharma, these findings

have implications for training programs aimed at creating positive work culture in

organizations.

Power Bases and Task Implementation

Brooks (1994) conducted a qualitative multiple case study to identify the causal

relationships between team learning tasks and the difficulty low-power members

encounter when implementing those tasks. Brooks conducted an exploratory study to

determine why some teams learn and others do not. The study revealed that power

29
differences among individual team members affected low-power members‘ capacity to

contribute to team-oriented tasks (Brooks, 1994). Overbeck and Park (2001) examined

the effect power distribution had on low-level employees and found that less powerful

employees rely heavily on high-power individuals for outcome decisions. When

exploring the relationship between learning teams and power bases, Brooks found that

unequal formal power among employees was a critical level in the learning process and

ultimately led to the success or failure of team projects.

The results of the study identified the distribution of formal powers as a critical

level in the successful collective production of knowledge by teams (Brooks, 1994).

Brooks (1994) stated that the ―study suggests that differences in power among team

members and insufficient formal power for some team members to control their own

time, movement, and work constrain the production of knowledge‖ (p. 229). Low-power

members were allowed to make only minimal contributions to the overall production of

knowledge when surrounded by high-power leaders, which ultimately affected the

organizations‘ ability to produce new knowledge (Brooks, 1994) and could instill feelings

of powerlessness among low-power members.

Powerlessness, as defined by Hildebrand and Markovic (2007), is the ―inability to

influence, respond and to have an effect, resulting in feeling stuck, hopeless, ineffective

or invalidated‖ (p. 192). Hildebrand and Markovic used this as a working definition to

ascertain what made systematic therapists feel powerless and to determine how

significant these feelings were to how they dealt with powerlessness (p. 191).

Though some therapists in Hildebrand and Markovic‘s (2007) study reported they

coped with feelings of powerlessness quite well, others mirrored feelings of subjects in

30
Brooks‘s (1994) study when they reported that powerlessness was ―a negative

experience, variously associated with frustration, anger, irritation, being disempowered,

unsafe, threatened and uncomfortable, or losing a sense of competence‖ (p. 196). Brooks

(1994) acknowledged that the research on low-power members was relative to one

company alone and that the result may not be construed as absolutely relevant to other

organizations. Brooks (1994) stated,

Although I propose that power differences among team members and the

insufficient power of some team members to control their own time, movement,

and work are critical levers influencing the successful production of knowledge

by teams in a variety of organizations, I make no claims of generalizability. (p.

233)

Brooks (1994) acknowledged the study had limitations, noting, ―though the teams

involved in the research varied substantially, the organization within which they

functioned represented only a small portion of the spectrum of organizations within

which learning teams are being utilized‖ (p. 261). Incorporating a wider spectrum of

organizations into the study allowed for more generalizability (Brooks, 1994). Brooks

stated the implications of the research would be beneficial for organizational leaders

whose organizations were in the midst of a transformation while attempting to adapt to a

diverse, technologically complex, and quickly changing global economy. Organizational

leaders must grasp a better understanding of power and the effect it had on team learning

in order to take full advantage of the new knowledge derived from the group concept

(Brooks, 1994).

31
 Gupta and Sharma‘s (2008) study of power bases and their effect on compliance,

and Brooks‘s (1994) study of power bases and their effect on low-power members‘

ability to implement tasks, validated the theory that power has a profound effect on

subordinates and organizational commitment. Hildebrand and Markovic (2007) explored

powerlessness in systematic therapy and provided further evidence to support the theory

that subordinate power, or lack thereof, has consequences that are found in Khatri‘s

(2009) research of employee behavioral implications stemming from power distance

within organizations.

Power and Subordinate Behavioral Implications

Khatri (2009, p. 1) explored the impact of power distance orientation on several

factors to include employee participation, organizational communication and decision

making, and organizational structuring and adaptation. Khatri adopted the term power

distance from Dutch experimental psychologist Mark Mulder. Mulder (1977) defined

―power distance as the degree of inequality in power between a less powerful individual

and a more powerful other, in which individual and other belong to the same (loosely or

tightly knit) social system‖ (p. 2). Using Hofstede‘s framework of cross-cultural

behavioral implications, Khatri investigated the effect of these behaviors in high-power-

distance organizations (p. 1). Khatri listed several characteristics inherent in the

superior–subordinate relationship as it pertains to high-power organizations:

(1) Employees are unwilling to participate in decisions and are content with their

managers making decisions and giving them instructions, which they follow

passively. (2) Jobs are narrowly and tightly specified, giving the employees

limited discretion. (3) A large communication gap exists between superiors and

32
 their subordinates because it is hard for the subordinates to air their views. (4)

Power distance gives managers unlimited power and control over subordinates.

Employees, in turn, have an unquestioning, submissive attitude. (5) Older and

senior employees get respect from junior employees not because of former‘s

competence but because of age and long tenure in the organization. (6) Decisions

are made and implemented faster. However, because of lack of input from lower

level employees . . . decisions are poorer in high power distance organizations.

(7) High power distance organizations are prone to unethical behavior . . . because

top managers have not to justify or defend their decisions to lower level

employees. Unethical behavior gets covered up or goes undetected. And (8),

managers tend to micromanage and even minor decisions go to the top. Thus,

higher level managers are inundated with routine decisions. (p. 1)

Francesco and Chen observed that in high-power cultures, superiors are expected

to make decisions without subordinate input; to request such input would appear that the

superior is weak or incompetent (Khatri, 2009, p. 3). Subordinates are not oblivious to

this fact and Khatri (2009) found that they often expect and even accept the fact that

powers are unequally distributed, so their input is neither requested nor required when

creating organizational objectives (p. 2). This reality is likely to alter the essence of the

environment within which subordinates were accustomed to operate, thereby stimulating

changes in personality.

Kipnis (1987) stated, ―Rather than attempting directly to alter a person‘s thinking,

feelings, or behavior, one can control behavior by changing the person‘s physical or

social environment‖ (p. 31). However, Khatri (2009) explained that although

33
subordinates may alter their secondary values to comply with organizational

requirements, they have a propensity to remain diligent in protecting core values for

which they hold true (p. 3).

Redding (as cited in Khatri, 2009) reported that in high-power organizations,

employees have an innate sense relative to the differences in legitimacy of power

between superiors and subordinates; therefore, it is uncommon that they would openly

challenge authority (p. 4). Hofstede (as cited in Khatri, 2009) believed the lack of

challenges stems from an unwillingness to express disagreement due to genuine fear that

exists within high-power distance organizations (p. 4).

Prendergast (as cited in Khatri, 2009) believed that ―senior managers are always

right even when they are wrong, and usually take it affront when contradicted (even

correctly) by their juniors; and the best way for employees to survive is to say the

expected thing‖ (p. 4). Therefore, superiors often surround themselves with subordinates

who are inclined to agree unquestionably with whatever decisions are made (Khatri,

2009, p. 4). However, Khatri (2009) explained that this type of loyalty comes with a

price and it is unlikely that the organization will ―benefit from the diverse perspectives,

experience, and knowledge of their subordinates‖ (p. 4). In addition, the pressure to

comply stifles creativity and suppresses ideas that are often refined through group

discussion and debate (Khatri, 2009, p. 4). Besides lack of creativity, other more serious

behavioral problems can manifest themselves when abusive supervision is present.

Bamberger and Bacharach (as cited in Tepper, 2007) found that there was a

positive relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates‘ problem drinking (p.

275). Bamberger and Bacharach (as cited in Tepper, 2007) contended that ―substance

34
abuse, of which problem drinking is one example, can be interpreted as a form of worker

resistance that workers partake in to symbolically revolt against their employer‖ (p. 275).

Abused subordinates may problem drink as a way to cope with the frustration and anger

associated with experiences of abuse (Tepper, 2007, p. 275). Tepper (2007) concluded

that not all subordinates that were victims of abuse engage in resistance behavior, but

subordinates most affected by abusive supervision and more prone to resistance behavior

were those who were impulsive, undisciplined, hostile, and argumentative (Tepper, 2007,

p. 275). Schaubhut, Adams, and Jex (as cited by Tepper, 2007) indicated that abusive

supervision affects low self-esteem and high self-esteem subordinates differently.

Schaubhut et al. (as cited in Tepper, 2007) found that ―among subordinates whose

self-esteem was low, abusive supervision was unrelated to subordinates‘ deviance

behavior‖ (p. 276). Most notably, Schaubhut et al. (as cited in Tepper, 2007) found that

subordinates with high self-esteem were most affected by abusive supervision that

ultimately led to deviant behavior in the workplace (p. 276). Schaubhut et al. (as cited in

Tepper, 2007) theorized that deviant behavior was most exhibited by subordinates with

high self-esteem because abusive supervision poses more of a threat to them than it

would for low-self-esteem subordinates whose self-image was already viewed as

unfavorable by definition; therefore, regardless of the treatment received by subordinates

with low-self-esteem, those with low-self-esteem were virtually unaffected by abusive

supervision (p. 276). Ironically, in an attempt to illicit high performance from

subordinates, abusive supervisors were having little impact on subordinates with low

esteem, whose performance may be subpar from the outset, but were, in fact, diminishing

35
the positive impact of subordinates with high self-esteem by subjecting them to abusive

behavior.

Gaps in Existing Literature on Power and Commitment

There exist gaps in recent literature detailing power and subordinate commitment

that remain to be explored. Capitalizing on strengths and weaknesses of earlier works,

the gaps provide seminal theorists opportunities to validate or improve upon earlier

findings. The influences of both early and recent works, whether qualitatively and

quantitatively analyzed, move forward the intent to understand power as it relates to

commitment, as was the intent of this study.

Scholar-practitioners agree that inherent in most leadership positions are power:

power to reward, power to punish, and power to lead. The characteristics relative to

power that leaders choose to enforce and the methods chosen to do so ultimately have an

effect, positive or negative, on organizational culture. Gupta and Sharma (2008) noted,

―Although the concept of power often evokes negative impressions, power almost always

exists in organizations‖ (p.1). Therefore, it is imperative that Army leaders grasp a firm

understanding of power and the affect it has on soldiers and organizational commitment.

From a military standpoint, power and the customs and courtesies that surround it

are commonplace. Almost every aspect of military customs and courtesies are based on

the ranking of individuals and those in charge, who are given the power to assert their

sometimes newfound authority. Often referred to as superiors, those in charge are given

the authority to make decisions and assert power, all under the protection of the UCMJ,

which contains laws that apply to all service members.

36
 Power and the extent to which it is exercised, especially in military environments,

is situational. Mulder, de Jong, Koppelaar, and Verhag (1986) studied power and its

influence in crisis and noncrisis situations, and found that when leaders viewed the

situation as noncrisis, they were open to consultation; however, when operating in crisis

mode, leaders reverted to more expert or formal power (p. 566). Perhaps in crisis versus

noncrisis situations, certain exercised powers are justified. Nevertheless, the study

surrounding perceived uses of power in Army organizations and the effect power has on

soldier commitment was viewed through the lens of those who experienced uses of power

while operating in U.S. Army organizations.

Rahim, Antonioni, and Psenicka (2001) stated, ―Further research is needed to

enhance our understanding of interrelationships of power, conflict-management styles,

and job performance‖ (p. 207). The phenomenon of understanding power as it relates to

job performance will best be understood by evaluating the ―effects of intervention on

supervisory power bases‖ (Rahim et al., 2001, p. 207). In addition, Rahim et al.

suggested that it ―will be useful to investigate the differences in the perceptions of

subordinates regarding the leadership performance of managers with low and high

personal power base‖ (p. 208).

As noted earlier, there has been recent research involving power and leadership

that were thoroughly researched and documented by a number of theorists, including, but

not limited to, Brooks (1994) and Gupta and Sharma (2008). However, there was very

little documented research on power and commitment and how the use or misuse of

power affects individuals in the Armed Forces. Studying power and the manner in which

leaders use or misuse it provides valuable information to Army leadership and gives

37
leaders documented insight on how best to use their power to influence subordinates

without compromising mission accomplishment. These findings are extremely important

to Army organizations because their profit margins go beyond dollars earned or wealth

accumulated; the Army‘s profit margin lies in countries protected and lives saved.

Previous Research Design Methodology

Roller (1997) stated, ―Researchers, especially academics, continue to conduct

experiments regarding the most basic design topics‖ (p. 17). Black (as cited in

Muringaseril, 2007) believed

A research design takes the following elements integratively into account:

Statement of research questions, determination of hypotheses (stemming from

prior observations and existing theories), definition as well as operationalization

of manifest and latent variables, selection of statistical tests to resolve hypotheses,

identification of population and sample, data collection (which either provides

support or refutes evidence for proposed hypotheses), data analysis and

interpretation of results (conversion of raw data into probabilistic and meaningful

explanations) and, finally, the overall evaluation of the process (p. 40).

Wolverton (2009) stated the effective application of inferential methodologies

provided a better understanding of ―the relevant questions, explicit or implicit

formulation of testable hypotheses, appropriate data, credible analysis, and valid

interpretation of the analytical results‖ (p. 370). Wolverton believed

in much the same way that the appraisal process serves as a systematic and

organized way to design a work plan consistent with the scope of a specific

38
 assignment, statistical analysis research design provides a road map for moving

from research question to insight. (p. 370)

Roller (1997) stated researchers must be mindful to integrate controls into the

research design to be assured of the ―reliability, interpretative value, and projectability of

the research results‖ (p. 17). The results of the research were dependent on several

factors, to include whether the research design employs qualitative or quantitative

methodologies. Black (as cited in Muringaseril, 2007) contended, ―Quantitative research

is strongly based on the collection of considerable data from representative samples for a

few variables, while qualitative research tends to pursue fewer subjects but investigates in

greater depth‖ (p. 41). This research involved exploring perceived uses of power using

quantitatively analyzed data.

Quantitative methodologies are ideal when researchers seek to identify

overarching patterns by testing theories and developing predictions (Muringaseril, 2007,

p. 41). Muringaseril (2007) stated, ―When researchers want to look for nomothetic or

law-like relationships among certain phenomena of interest, by means of quantifications

and accurate measurements, this form of inquiry becomes relevant‖ (p. 41). The

relevancy of methodologies and research design added to the reliability of data collected.

Horowitz and Golob (1979) asserted that the notion of reliability in instruments

was fundamentally used in social sciences, developed using a framework based on

psychological and educational measurements, and ―focused on how consistently skills of

individuals are rated on two successive occasions‖ (p. 532). According to Horowitz and

Golob, ―If the time interval between test and retest is short enough, changes can be

39
attributed to the unreliability of the measuring instrument and/or the individual rather

than to a true change in the individual‖ (p. 532).

Horowitz and Golob (1979) believed reliability to be a fundamental characteristic

of research measuring instruments. Reliability was, as Horowitz and Golob described,

synonymous with dependability, stability, consistency, and predictability (p. 532).

Regardless of the instrument employed, the data must be measureable and are deemed

reliable if they produce ―the same results on different occasions when conditions are kept

constant‖ (Horowitz & Golob, 1979, p. 532).

To test the degree of data reliability, Muringaseril (2007) stated that Cronbach‘s

alpha was an important measure of the reliability of an instrument. Muringaseril believed

that construct validity, also referred to as internal reliability, can be measured through

Cronbach‘s alpha (p. 56). The degree of internal reliability for an unobservable variable

must meet two basic premises: ―a consistent level of measurement across all items and a

consistent conceptualization of the items with regards to content and range of values‖

(Muringaseril, 2007, p. 56).

Muringaseril (2007) stated, ―Cronbach‘s alpha is most often applied to dormant

variables, in contrast to those that are clearly evident, dormant variables cannot be

directly observed‖ (p. 56). Muringaseril contended, ―Previous discussion on

methodological issues, as they pertain to research strategies, uses Cronbach‘s coefficient

alpha calculations to further address and resolve reliability issues‖ (p. 56).

Muringaseril (2007) stated in general, the ―internal consistency coefficient alpha

for a particular construct requires a value of 0.7 or higher to be further considered as a

reliable instrument‖ (p. 56). Angle and Perry (1981) conducted a study and used the

40
OCQ as their survey instrument. The reliability of OCQ was tested using Cronbach‘s

alpha, which was .90 for Angle and Perry‘s study (p. 4).

Angle and Perry (1981) used OCQ to examine the relationship between

organizational commitment of lower level employees and organizational effectiveness in

organizations offering bus services (p. 1). The authors ―anticipated that the relative

strength of the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational

effectiveness might vary depending upon the behaviors to which the employees were

committed‖ (Angle & Perry, 1981, p. 3). Dunham, Smith, and Blackburn (1977) stated,

―Researchers have conducted studies utilizing job satisfaction measures as both

dependent and independent variables of theoretical and applied importance‖ (p. 420).

Power, the use of it, and employee commitment to the organizations have long

been studied. Several authors have used numerous instruments and employed several

research designs to study organizational commitment of employees. Meyer, Paunonen,

Gellatly, Goffin, and Jackson (1989) used the OCQ to study the relationship between the

performances of first-level managers in a large food service company. Meyer et al.

(1989) used OCQ as a tool to analyze affective commitment, continuance commitment,

and job satisfaction as they pertain to the organizational commitment of company

employees and the performances of first-level managers (p. 152).

Altimus and Tersine (1973) used the JDI to study the level of job satisfaction in

blue-collar workers. The results of the JDI instrument was analyzed using the Kruskal-

Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), which tested the three age categories for

job satisfaction, and the Mann-Whitney U-tests for work job factor (Altimus & Tersine,

1973, p. 53). Downey, Hellriegel, and Slocum (1975) used the JDI as an instrument ―to

41
test the proposition that organizational climate interacts with individual personality in

influencing job satisfaction and performance‖ (p. 139). Downey et al. noted that the JDI

was used ―to measure the manager‘s satisfaction with five areas of his job: the work

itself, his immediate supervisors, pay, co-workers, and opportunity for promotion‖ (p.

151). Due to the reliability of the JDI, other authors have used it as an instrument of

measurement during the course of their studies.

Kantor (1991) conducted a study on the responses of participants by analyzing

data received on the JDI and examining the effects of computer administration and

identification of survey participants (p. 309). Kantor used a

2 (administration methods) by 3 (identification) analysis of variance (ANOVA)

design was used to analyze JDI subscale scores . . . and ANOVA was also used to

test the secondary dependent variables (enjoyability of survey administration and

perceptions about truthfulness of survey responses). (p. 316)

Kantor used correlational methodologies at a .05 significance level to calculate the

reliability of subscales to determine the relationship among each item and the appropriate

subscale (p. 316).

Golembiewski and Yeager (1978) addressed the traditions of inquiry by posing

what they deemed as two essential questions:

Is the JDI applicable to a broad range of jobs and to employees with differing

demographic characteristics? Moreover, are the conventional five JDI scales

orthogonal in the sense of measuring some unitary somethings that apply

similarly to broad ranges of employees and work sites? (p. 515)

42
Smith, Smith, and Rollo (as cited in Golembiewski & Yeager, 1978) tested the

applicability of the JDI instrument on several populations having different geographic

characteristics (p. 515).

The results of the study concluded that the JDI was applicable to employees with

different demographic characteristics and it was this revelation that Golembiewski and

Yeager (1978) stated provides credibility to the instrument‘s worth (p. 518).

Golembiewski and Yeager concluded,

The JDI seems to mean much the same to blacks and whites, males and females,

white females and white males, people in high ranks and low, and those who

identify with the management group versus those who see themselves as

nonmanagement. (p. 518)

Online Versus Traditional Survey Techniques

Roller (1997) stated that within the realm of quantitative research, much debate

has taken place when arguing the effectiveness of online versus traditional surveys (p.

17). Macias, Springston, Lariscy, and Neustifter (2008) noted, ―Apart from special

audiences, where response rates can range from 30 percent to as high as 80 percent when

the survey is of high interest to respondents, general mail surveys to mass audiences yield

notoriously low response rates‖ (p. 80). In addition, Macias et al. explained that ―mail

and email surveys have the lowest mean response rates . . . [and that] this likely has a lot

to do with the media‖ (p. 92). Macias et al. claims that the low response rate was

attributed to

the proliferation of email spam and the ways individuals are coping with this

phenomenon, such as automatic filters or manual deletion of mail from unknown

43
 sources, and the quantity of junk mail people receive and subsequently throw

away at home. (p. 92)

Macias et al. (2008) contended that across disciplines, scholars who use surveys

share interest in the method: Which sampling techniques yield the most reliable

findings and the best response rate? Which means of gathering data (e.g., mail,

phone, etc.) produces the most representative sample? How important are

incentives and facilitators in improving response rates? (p. 80)

Roller (1997) stated that in quantitative research, there exists a great deal of discussion

among scholars about techniques needed to control ―nonresponse bias in mail surveys

and refusal rates in telephone studies‖ (p. 17). And though advocates of online research

believed it to be an efficient means of collecting data, skeptics claimed that online

research drew from a limited population (Roller, 1997, p. 17).

Aitken, Power, and Dwyer (2008) reported findings of an online survey

distributed to medical practitioners in Australia. The online (Internet-based) survey was

distributed to 609 registered pharmacotherapy prescribers in Victoria and Queensland

(Aitken et al., 2008, p. 288). The practitioners were sent invitations to participate in the

survey and the following month they were sent reminder letters (Aitken, 2008).

According to Aitken et al., of the 609 online invitations, ―only nine were returned and 52

questionnaires completed, making the overall response rate 52/600 = 8.7%‖ (p. 288).

Though the techniques were sound, Aitken et al. noted that the response rate was

significantly lower than the most recent paper-based surveys of medical practitioners (p.

288), and ―on-line surveys are not yet an effective method of collecting data from

44
Australian medical practitioners; researchers should continue to use paper questionnaires

for maximum response‖ (p. 288).

Teitler, Reichman, and Sprachman found that personal interviews yielded the

highest response rate (as cited in Macias et al., 2008, p. 92). ―Personal interviews are the

most expensive form of research in a field setting, but can be cost-effective in situations

where there is a concentration of people with a shared interest‖ (Macias et al., 2008, p.

81).

Though the research indicated that response rates to e-mail questionnaires

received a lower response rate than personal interviews, the researcher used e-mailed

questionnaires as a means of collecting data. The researcher anticipated that using the

technique might have an effect on response rates; therefore, an additional 30% of

participants were added to the sample necessary to increase validity, reliability, and

response rates. Macias et al. (2008) contended, ―The higher the response rate, the more

representative the sample‖ (p. 81).

45
 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

The focus of this study was to explore the effect perceived uses of power had on

retired U.S. Army soldiers‘ commitment. Retired U.S. Army soldiers were expected to

use e-mailed questionnaires to provide insight on perceived uses of power. The chapter

includes a discussion on the suitability of the research design as well as the participants in

the sample. The setting relevant to gathering information and instrumentation measures

necessary to analyze findings is also discussed in this chapter. Data collection

methodology, data analysis, validity and reliability, generalizability, and ethical

considerations are all essential components discussed in this chapter.

Research Design

Research designs are important as they drive the way data are collected and

eventually analyzed. An ineffective research design can decrease response rates, which

Yu and Cooper (1983) described as a ―universal measure of the effectiveness of a

technique‖ (p. 36). Yu and Cooper presented a ―comprehensive literature review of

techniques used to increase response rates to questionnaires‖ (p. 36). The findings were

based on data analyzed using 497 response rates found in 93 journal article (Yu &

Cooper, 1983). Researchers can greatly increase response rates to questionnaires by

employing personal or telephonic techniques (Yu & Cooper, 1983).

Yu and Cooper (1983) noted that synthesizing past research revealed that

quantitative rather than narrative approaches to analyzing data have a propensity to

increase participants‘ response rate. There is a ―universal acceptance of a standard

46
measurement of response rate‖ (Yu & Cooper, 1983, p. 41), and quantitative analysis

satisfies that criteria. Yu and Cooper stated, ―Because most of the techniques used to

increase response rates have been employed in dozens of studies, qualitative reviews are

extremely difficult to perform and their results are necessarily imprecise‖ (p. 41).

Therefore, quantitative data analysis was used as the research design. Though Yu and

Cooper believed e-mailed questionnaires would have fewer responses than those that

were personal or conducted by telephone, the researcher attempted to evade this negative

effect by increasing survey respondents by 30% of the number required to support

validity and reliability. The participants received the Informed Consent, Demographic

Questionnaire, JDI, OCQ, and Special Events in the Workplace through e-mail and were

able to respond to survey questionnaires and submit them to the researcher‘s e-mail

address.

Vredenburgh and Brender (1998) noted, ―Because individuals perpetrate abuses

and individuals suffer abuses, the appropriate unit of analysis for initial research into the

abuse of power is the individual‖ (p. 1340). In other literature on power, Brass and

Burkhardt (as cited in Donnelly, 2001) supported examining the micro-level view as well,

focusing on the behavior of individuals as a legitimate research context for the study of

power.

Sample

Williams (as cited in Yu & Cooper, 1983) contended, ―The use of samples to

obtain relatively precise information about a population is a very efficient technique‖ (p.

37). Sampling was less costly than a complete census and it allowed the researcher to

make inferences about the overall population (Yu & Cooper, 1983). With regard to

47
accuracy, Churchill and Gilbert (as cited in Yu & Cooper, 1983) believed that though it

may be surprising, ―a sample may also prove to be more accurate than a complete census,

because the latter has greater potential for nonsampling error‖ (p. 36). Random

purposeful sampling was used for this research.

Random sampling occurs when the researcher selects random cases from the

sampling frame and randomly chooses ―a desired number of individuals to participate in

the study‖ (Collins & Onwuegbuzie, 2006, p. 85). ―Random purposeful sampling adds

credibility when the purposeful sample is larger than one can handle and reduces

judgment within a purposeful category‖ (Mugo, 2010, p. 1). Random purposeful

sampling can be used to collect data from a small sample size when the population is

much too large. ―This sampling strategy is employed when there is a very large pool of

potentially information-rich cases and no obvious reason to choose one case over

another‖ (Sandelowski, 2000, p. 249). Though random purposeful sampling is credible

and reduces judgment, it not effective for generalizations (Mugo, 2010). Therefore, this

research is not intended to be used to make generalizations about the entire population.

Harris (2008) surveyed 99 U.S. Army participants to find the degree of

commitment mentors have toward U.S. Army service members. Stowers (2010)

conducted a study on perceived organizational support and organizational commitment in

the U.S. Army Reserve. Though it was the researcher‘s initial intent to conduct a similar

study using active duty U.S. Army soldiers, previously obtained consent was recanted

due to ambiguity in doctrinal guidelines concerning research of active duty soldiers and a

brigade commander‘s refusal to have his soldiers participate in the study. Therefore, the

researcher conducted the study with retired U.S. Army soldiers serving as survey

48
participants. The study, as intended, used survey instruments from Keashly et al.‘s

(1994) study. Keashly et al.‘s target population was 59 student employees surveyed to

document cases of abuse of power in work organizations. The researcher used Keashly et

al.‘s survey and its target population as a basis for the study; therefore, the initial target

population for the study was 60 retired U.S. Army soldiers; however, to increase response

rates, the researcher increased the target population by 30% to 78 participants. The

researcher distributed 104 surveys and 80 were returned (77% response rate).

Participants were to be retired after serving no less than 20 years in an Army

organization. Participants‘ age ranged between 37 and 65 years. Among other things,

participant‘s military occupational specialties and marital status were nonfactors in the

recruitment process. In an effort to gauge the degree to which each group felt the use of

power affected organizational commitment, a nearly equal amount of both men and

women were recruited. Therefore, the researcher intended to recruit approximately 40

men and 38 women; however, 46 males and 32 females returned surveys that were used

in the study. Active duty soldiers were excluded from the survey because anonymity

could not be guaranteed and they could have faced reprisals that could negatively affect

their careers.

The Informed Consent, Demographic Questionnaire, JDI, OCQ, and Special

Events in the Workplace questionnaires were e-mailed to participants. After all

questionnaires were returned to the researcher, the Demographic Questionnaire was

analyzed to ensure participants met the criteria. Two surveys were not analyzed because

one participant was over the age of 65 and one participant did not complete all the

questionnaires.

49
 Instrumentation Measures

During the course of the study, the researcher distributed the Informed Consent

Form, Demographic Questionnaire, JDI, OCQ, and Special Events in the Workplace

instruments to 104 retired U.S. Army soldiers. It was imperative to determine the extent

to which each participant answered all questions by coding them in manners conducive to

accurate data analysis.

Miles and Huberman (1994) stated when it comes to coding, ―If you don‘t know

what matters more, everything matters‖ (p. 55). Because it is was quite difficult to

consider everything when analyzing and documenting information, a working coding

system was very important to the data collection process. Miles and Huberman described

pattern codes as inferential and explanatory, and it appeared that pattern codes would

work best for the research topic.

Data representation was equally as important as coding the data. Large amounts

of data can distort a study‘s findings if not properly annotated. Therefore, it was

important to arrange data in such a way that they were readily available and easily

understood. Miles and Huberman (1994) noted, ―Displaying your reduced data in a

systematic way has immense consequences for your understanding‖ (p. 239). Tables and

figures were used in this study to increase understanding of the data. Miles and

Huberman stated,

The issue is not whether you are building a ―correct‖ matrix, but whether it is a

helpful one that will give you reasonable answers to the questions you are

asking—or suggest promising new ways to lay out the data to get answers. (p.

240)

50
 Data Collection Methodology

Miles and Huberman (1994) stated the intent of the research topic is to ―try to

locate the immediate act, event, actor, or activity in a more abstractly defined class‖ (p.

255). The researcher collected the data by means of e-mailed questionnaires collected

from retired U.S. Army soldiers.

As a U.S. Army retiree, the researcher had limited interaction with other retirees

outside the Pacific region, but constant interaction with retirees in and around Seoul,

South Korea and the Pacific region. The retirees in this region were serving as either

U.S. contractors or DOD civilians. However, to obtain a more diverse group of

participants, the researcher e-mailed the Informed Consent, Demographic Questionnaire,

Special Events in the Workplace, JDI, and OCQ survey to participants both within and

outside the United States to request participation in the survey.

The Informed Consent was used to request participation in the study and inform

participants of their rights before, during, and after the study. The Demographic

Questionnaire was used to ensure participants met the proposed criteria. Special Events

in the Workplace is a 48-event instrument used to address R1 (To what extent do workers

experience abusive behaviors in the workplace?) and R3 (Who are the actors of these

behaviors [superior, coworker, or subordinate. The participants responded by indicating

the degree to which an event happened in the workplace and noted the actors most

responsible for the event.

In conjunction with Special Events in the Workplace, the JDI questionnaire is a

five-category instrument used to address R2 (What is the relationship between the impact

of abusive behaviors and the workers‘ job satisfaction?). The respondents were required

51
to respond to each event by indicating ―y‖ for yes, ―n‖ for no, or ―?‖ for undecided. The

respondents received instructions requesting that they judge the extent to which they felt

each of the descriptive words of the five categories best described their experiences. For

each statement in which the participants felt the statement was true, they placed a ―y‖

beside that particular aspect; if they felt the word did not describe a particular aspect of a

particular category, then they placed an ―n‖ beside that aspect; however, if they were

undecided and felt that any aspect in either category was neither true nor untrue, they

placed a ―?‖ by that aspect.

The OCQ is a 15-statement instrument used to address R4 (To what extend is the

target‘s commitment to the organization affected by these behaviors?). Participants were

asked to respond to statements listed on the OCQ using a 7-point Likert-type scale. The

scale consisted of responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Symonds (as cited in Colman, Norris, & Preston, 1997) was the first to suggest that

reliability is optimized with seven response categories, and further findings from Ghiselli

tended to agree. Colman et al. (1997) noted what was described as ―an influential review

article‖ (p. 356), in which Miller (as cited in Colman et al., 1997)

argued that the human mind has a span of absolute judgment that can distinguish

about seven distinct categories, a span of immediate memory for about seven

items, and a span of attention that can encompass about six objects at a time,

which suggested that any increase in number of response categories beyond six or

seven might be futile. (p. 356)

Therefore, the researcher used the 7-point Likert-type scale to analyze data collected

from the OCQ.

52
 Data Analysis

Yu and Cooper (1983) stated that mailed questionnaires tend to garner fewer

responses than personal contact. In addition, Yu and Cooper believed that there is a

universal acceptance of standards of measurement that quantitative data analysis

provides. Qualitative reviews are difficult to execute and their results are often vague

(Yu & Cooper, 1983, p. 41). Therefore, the data gathered during this study utilized

quantitative data analysis; however, the researcher found that e-mailed questionnaires

garnered adequate responses with a response rate of 77%.

The software used in the analysis of the data was Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) Version 18.0. Altimus and Tersine (1973) used SPSS software,

Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA, and Mann-Whitney U tests while using the JDI

instrument to investigate the level of job satisfaction in blue-collar workers. A. Mathieu

et al. (2000) used SPSS Version 6.1 to analyze OCQs collected while investigating

similarities between English and French versions of the instrument.

The data analysis strategy for research questions was what Miles and Huberman

(1994) described as ―three concurrent flows of activity‖ (p. 11): data reduction, data

display, and conclusion drawing and verification. Data reduction occurs when coding

large amounts of data; data display is an organized, compressed assembly of information

that, in turn, permits conclusion drawing and action (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 11).

Marton (1994) stated data reduction begins when the researcher brackets preconceived

ideas and judges to what extent responses reflect an understanding of the phenomenon as

it appears to the participants and not as it appears to the researcher.

53
 The data analysis for the study was used to assess several key variables such as

levels of commitment and perceived uses of power. Tables show the demographic profile

of respondents, descriptive statistics and the reliability of coefficients, correlations among

employees‘ perception of supervisors, and models that test hypotheses. In addition, SPSS

was used to analyze research findings. As the study was quantitative in nature, SPSS had

data analysis variations that saved time and reduced the potential for translation error. As

intended, the researcher retained the services of a qualified certified statistician to ensure

accurate data analysis.

Validity and Reliability

Additional studies were conducted to test the validity and reliability of the

instruments: the JDI, OCQ, and Special Events in the Workplace. Vroom stated, ―The

JDI is without doubt the most carefully constructed measure of job satisfaction in

existence today . . . [and it is] because of its acceptance and thorough pre-testing, the JDI

was selected for this study‖ (Altimus & Tersine, 1973, p. 56).

Altimus and Tersine (1973) conducted a study to investigate the level of job

satisfaction in blue-collar workers. The results of the JDI instrument in the study was

analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA which tested the three age

categories for job satisfaction and Mann-Whitney U-tests for work job factor (Altimus &

Tersine, 1973, p. 53). The study revealed that younger workers were significantly less

satisfied with work, ―esteem, self-actualization, and total work satisfaction‖ (p. 53).

Levels of satisfaction were perceived differently among younger workers than among

their older counterparts.

54
 Downey et al. (1975) used the JDI as an instrument ―to test the proposition that

organizational climate interacts with individual personality in influencing job satisfaction

and performance‖ (p. 139). Downey et al. stated the JDI was used ―to measure the

manager‘s satisfaction with five areas of his job: the work itself, his immediate

supervisors, pay, co-workers, and opportunity for promotion‖ (p. 151). Downey et al.

found that job satisfaction was a function displayed during interaction between

personality characteristics of individuals and their perceptions of the environment or

organizational climate (p. 153).

Other researchers also used the OCQ as an instrument to test organizational

commitment. Meyer et al. (1989) stated, ―The most widely used measure of affective

commitment to date has been the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire‖ (p. 152).

Meyer et al. used the OCQ to study the relationship between performance of first-level

managers in a large food service company analyzing both affective and continuance

commitment and job satisfaction (p. 152). The results of the study indicated, as

predicted, ―affective commitment correlated positively and continuance commitment

correlated negatively with all three measures of performance‖ (Meyer et al., 1989, p.

152). Meyer et al. proposed that the value of commitment to the organization may well

―depend on the nature of that commitment‖ (p. 155).

Angle and Perry (1981) used the OCQ to investigate the relationship between

organizational commitment of lower level employees and organizational effectiveness in

organizations offering bus services (p. 1). Among other factors, Angle and Perry stated

that organizational commitment was linked to organizational adaptability, turnover, and

tardiness rate (p. 1). However, there was little evidence to support the claim that

55
organizational commitment was associated with operating costs or absenteeism (Angle &

Perry, 1981, p. 1). ―Organizational commitment was significantly related to

organizational adaptability, based on employee questionnaire data, but was not

significantly related based on manager questionnaires‖ (Angle & Perry, 1981, p. 9).

Angle and Perry noted, ―The research most clearly accomplished was a constructive

replication of a relatively large body of earlier work, showing a definite negative

relationship between organizational commitment and voluntary turnover‖ (p. 11).

Specific Events in the Workplace was an instrument used by Keashly et al. (1994)

and derived from a number of sources to include Abusive Behaviors Inventory (Shepard

& Campbell, 1992), Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Tolman, 1989),

and Conflict Tactics Scale (Strauss, 1979). Other items included in Special Events in the

Workplace were generated by Keashly et al., but were behaviors identified in health care

by Diaz and McMillin (1991) and in organizational literature by Motowidlo, Packard, and

Manning (1986) and Ryan and Oesreich (1991). The culmination of data gained became

the 48-event (18 positive and 30 negative) instrument that Keashly et al. titled Special

Events in the Workplace. Keashly et al. noted (p. 346) ―Been pushed or grabbed‖ and

―Had something thrown at me in anger‖ were included to assess the prevalence of such

events in their sample of work experience.

In an effort to reconfirm findings of earlier research and to determine whether the

validity and reliability of such data were still relevant, the researcher used the chi-square

goodness of fit test and one-way ANOVA applications. As with the study conducted by

Downey et al. (1975), this study was conducted using a .05 significance level.

56
 The researcher‘s preconceived notions were one of the greatest concerns related

to bias and validity involved in conducting this study. Participants in the study provided

insight into particular events related to the use of power and it was vitally important that

their messages not get lost in translation. Maxwell (1992) stated, ―The omission of things

that participants in the discussion feel are significant to the account (for the purposes at

issue) threatens the descriptive validity of the account‖ (p. 287). In addition, descriptive

validity ―is free from disagreement about the theory in question. This assertion does not

mean that there cannot be disagreement about the descriptive validity of an account, only

that such disagreement could in principle be resolved by the appropriate data‖ (Maxwell,

1992, p. 287).

In order to resolve possible biases and to increase validity, Trochim (2006)

suggested researchers ―actively search for and describe negative instances that contradict

prior observations . . . [and] conduct a data audit that examines the data collection and

analysis procedures and makes judgments about the potential for bias or distortion‖ (p.

1). For this reason, the researcher chose Special Events in the Workplace questionnaire

because it has both positive and negative work-related events. For validity‘s sake, it was

be best to ensure patterns, if they existed, presented themselves during the course of the

research without bias.

Generalizability

Retired U.S. Army soldiers from the Pacific region and located both within and

outside the United States, regardless of military occupational specialties or job titles,

were used in this research. Due to the sheer nature of military organizations as a whole

57
and the cultural differences across military branches, the researcher cannot make claims

of generalizability of findings.

Ethical Considerations

Velasquez (2006) referenced Kant‘s categorical imperative, which stated, ―never

do something unless you are willing to have everyone do it . . . [and] never use people

merely as a means, but always respect and develop their ability to choose for themselves‖

(p. 80). It was with this premise that the ethical principles of beneficence, justice, and

respect for persons were appropriate.

Beneficence states that experimentation should do no harm, and it should seek to

maximize benefits and minimize risks to persons involved in a study (Kaufman &

Ramarao, 2005). Justice relates to the fair treatment of persons and the equitable

distribution of benefits, and it is this principle that will guard against biases and

prejudices against minority, underprivileged, or impaired groups (Kaufman & Ramarao,

2005). Respect for persons focuses on maintaining the rights of humans as autonomous

persons and that individuals have a right to privacy, to information about their

participation, and to accept or decline the invitation to participate (Kaufman & Ramarao,

2005).

As for the informed consent, the participants were given contact information for

the researcher that they could use to contact the researcher at any time before, during, or

after the study. In addition, participants were advised in the Informed Consent Form to

contact their local health care provider or the Department of Veteran Affairs at a toll free

number (1-877-222-VETS [8387]) or visit the website at http://www1.va.gov/health/ if

they experienced any discomfort or mental or physical stress while participating in the

58
study. Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any point

and for any reason, without cause.

As for data security, only the researcher and the statistician retained by the

researcher handled all completed survey instruments. The researcher printed hard copies

for data analysis and download completed copies to a removable hard drive. Both the

printed copies and removable hard drive were stored in the researcher‘s residence during

data analysis. Now that the data have been analyzed, instruments have been removed

from the researcher‘s residence and will be stored at the researcher‘s local bank in a safe

deposit box where they will remain for the next 7 years, which is the time limit

designated for survey instruments to be retained after research completion. After the time

limit to retain data expires, the survey instruments will be removed from the safe deposit

box. The printed copies will be incinerated and the removable hard drive destroyed.

Ethical considerations were an integral part of the research and constant care was

given to ensure the rights of individuals were protected. The Institutional Review Board

(IRB) process and informed consent were used to maximize benefit; reduce risk; ensure

fair and equal treatment of all participants; and protect the privacy, anonymity, and

confidentiality of participants and data.

59
 CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

This chapter contains the results of previously discussed research methodologies

used to analyze data pertaining to retired U.S. Army soldiers‘ perceptions on the uses of

power in Army organizations. The data collected was used to assess whether or not

levels of commitment to the organization were affected by purported uses of power. The

results of the study are contained in this chapter.

Data Collection

The Informed Consent was used to request participation in the study and to

inform participants of their rights before, during, and after the study. The Demographic

Questionnaire was used to ensure participants met the criteria to participate. Special

Events in the Workplace is a 48-event instrument used to address R1 and R3. In

conjunction with Special Events in the Workplace, the JDI was used to address R2. The

OCQ is a 15-statement instrument that was used to address R4.

Participants were recruited through e-mail. Being a military retiree, the

researcher had access to several U.S. Army retirees‘ e-mail addresses through work and

personal relationships. Participants were sent an e-mail requesting participation in the

research. Several participants sent e-mail addresses to researcher of other U.S. retirees

who wished to participate in the study. All participants were e-mailed the Informed

Consent, Demographic Questionnaire, Special Events in the Workplace, OCQ, and JDI.

60
Of 104 surveys distributed to participants, 80 were returned. Of those returned, two were

not used because one was incomplete and the other participant was over the age of 65.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 18.0. First, the demographic data for the

sample are reported. Then the results of testing the hypotheses are summarized.

Demographics
Seventy-eight U.S. Army retired soldiers participated in this study: 46 (59%)

males and 32 (41%) females (see Table 1). The age of the participants ranged from 37 to

65 years of age, such that 33 (42.3%) were between 37 and 45, 36 (46.2%) were between

46 and 55, and nine (11.5%) were between 56 and 65 (see Table 2). As for educational

degrees, 13 had 1 year or less of college, 17 had associate degrees, 28 had bachelor‘s

degree, 19 had master‘s degree, and one participant had a professional degree (see Table

3). Participants were retired after serving no less than 20 years in Army organizations.

Active duty soldiers were excluded from the survey because anonymity could not be

guaranteed and they could face reprisals that could negatively affect their careers.

Table 1. Gender of Respondents

n % Cumulative %

Male 46 59.0 59.0

Female 32 41.0 100.0

Total 78 100.0

61
Table 2. Age of Respondents

n % Cumulative %

37-45 33 42.3 42.3

46-55 36 46.2 88.5

56-65 9 11.5 100.0

Total 78 100.0

Table 3. Education of Respondents After High School

n % Cumulative %

1+year, no degree 13 16.7 16.7

Associate 17 21.8 38.5

Bachelor‘s 28 35.9 74.4

Master‘s 19 24.4 98.7

Professional 1 1.3 100.0

Total 78 100.0

Hypothesis Testing Results

Research Question 1: To what extent do workers experience abusive

behaviors in the workplace? The researcher used the Special Events in the Workplace

Questionnaire, which is a 48-event instrument used by Keashly et al. (1994) to determine

events ―that may occur between people in the workplace‖ (p. 346). Data collected from
62
the instrument were first used to address the frequency of events as it pertains to R1. The

questionnaire addressed both nonphysical abuse and physical abuse. The null hypothesis

was that workers do not experience abusive behavior in the workplace. The alternative

hypothesis was that workers do experience abusive behaviors in the workplace.

The frequency of nonphysical abuse and the frequency of physical abuse were

used to test this null hypothesis. For nonphysical abuse, a few times was the most

common response (n = 40, 51.3%), while never had 17 (21.8%) responses and once had

15 (19.2%) responses (see Table 4). For physical abuse, the most common response was

never (n = 65, 83.3%), with once selected eight (10.3%) times and a few times chosen

five (6.4%) times (see Table 5).

Table 4. Frequency of Nonphysical Abuse

n % Cumulative %

Never 17 21.8 21.8

Once 15 19.2 41.0

A few times 40 51.3 92.3

More than a few times 6 7.7 100.0

Total 78 100.0

63
Table 5. Frequency of Physical Abuse

n % Cumulative %

Never 65 83.3 83.3

Once 8 10.3 93.6

A few times 5 6.4 100.0

Total 78 100.0

To test the hypothesis that workers do not experience abuse in the workplace, a

chi-square goodness of fit test was conducted because the variables nonphysical and

physical abuse are nominal variables. The chi-square goodness of fit test was used to

determine if the frequency of occurrence of each of the abuse variables is uniform

(Snedecor & Cochran, 1989). The chi-square goodness of fit test assesses the following

hypotheses:

H0: The data follow a uniform distribution.

Ha: The data do not follow the uniform distribution.

The results of the chi-square tests indicated that the null hypothesis was rejected for both

nonphysical abuse (χ2 = 83.61, p < .05) and physical abuse (χ2 = 85.47, p < .05; see Table

6). Because the data did not follow a uniform distribution, a significant difference exists

in the frequency of occurrence for the responses. For nonphysical abuse, the response a

few times occurred more frequently than the other responses, as can be seen in Table 4.

For physical abuse, the response never occurs more frequently than the other responses,

as can be seen in Table 5. Therefore, it was concluded that the respondents experienced

64
nonphysical abuse but did not experience physical abuse. As a result, the hypothesis that

workers do not experience abuse was rejected for nonphysical abuse, but could not be

rejected for physical abuse.

Table 6. Chi-Square Analysis for Frequency of Nonphysical and Physical Abuse (N = 78)

df χ2 p

Nonphysical abuse 5 83.61 .000

Physical abuse 2 85.47 .000

The frequency of occurrence of workplace abuse was further investigated based

on the gender and age of the respondents. Figures 1 and 2 show that men and women had

similar experiences in terms of both nonphysical and physical abuse. The majority of

both men and women indicated that they experienced nonphysical abuse a few times (see

Figure 1), while they indicated that they never experienced physical abuse (see Figure 2).

When frequency of abuse was broken down by age, the results indicated that the three

age groups had similar experiences, such that the majority of the respondents in all three

age groups reported experiencing nonphysical abuse a few times (see Figure 3), while the

majority of respondents in all three age groups reported never experienced physical abuse

(see Figure 4).

65
Figure 1. Frequency of occurrence of nonphysical abuse for males and females.

Figure 2. Frequency of occurrence of physical abuse for males and females.

66
Figure 3. Frequency of nonphysical abuse by age group.

Figure 4. Frequency of physical abuse by age group.

67
 Research Question 2: What is the relationship between the impact of abusive

behaviors and the workers’ job satisfaction? The Special Events in the Workplace

survey (Keashly et al., 1994) was next used to address the impact of abusive events in the

workplace, and the JDI was used to address the extent to which the participants felt each

of the descriptive words best described their job experiences. The combination of the

two survey instruments was used by participants to address the impact of workplace

events and job satisfaction as it pertained to R2. The null hypothesis was that there was

not a relationship between abusive behavior in the workplace and job satisfaction. The

alternative hypothesis was that there was a relationship between abusive behavior in the

workplace and job satisfaction.

Thirty-three (42.3%) respondents indicated that the impact of nonphysical abuse

was neither negative nor positive; however, when the 17 respondents who indicated they

had not experienced nonphysical abuse (see Table 4) were removed from the sample,

only 16 respondents had selected neither negative nor positive. Twenty (25.6%) of the

respondents indicated the impact was somewhat negative, 11 (14.1%) respondents

selected negative, and 14 (17.9%) respondents selected extremely negative, which totaled

45 (57.7%) respondents (see Table 7), so the majority of the respondents indicated that

the impact nonphysical abuse was somewhat negative, negative, or extremely negative.

Yet, the vast majority (n = 64, 82.1%) of the respondents indicated that the impact of the

physical abuse was neither negative nor positive, while three (3.8%) respondents reported

somewhat negative, two (2.6%) respondents reported negative, eight (10.3%) respondent

selected extremely negative (see Table 8). One (1.3%) respondent indicated that the

impact of the physical abuse was extremely positive (see Table 8).

68
Table 7. Impact of Nonphysical Abuse

n % Cumulative %

Extremely negative 14 17.9 17.9

Negative 11 14.1 32.1

Somewhat negative 20 25.6 57.7

Neither positive nor negative 33 42.3 100.0

Total 78 100.0

Table 8. Impact of Physical Abuse

n % Cumulative %

Extremely negative 8 10.3 10.3

Negative 2 2.6 12.8

Somewhat negative 3 3.8 16.7

Neither positive nor negative 64 82.1 98.7

Extremely positive 1 1.3 100.0

Total 78 100.0

To determine if the differences in the response rates were significant, a chi-square

goodness of fit test was conducted on both variables. For both the nonphysical and the

physical abuse, the somewhat negative, negative, and extremely negative categories were

combined into one category called negative. The 17 respondents who had indicated that

they had never experienced nonphysical abuse were removed from the sample before the
69
chi-square was conducted on nonphysical abuse. The removal left 45 respondents who

indicated that the impact of the abuse was negative and 16 who stated that the impact of

the abuse was neither negative nor positive (see Figure 5). Before the chi-square was

conducted on physical abuse, 65 respondents who had never experienced physical abuse

were removed, leaving only 13 respondents. Of the 13 respondents left, 12 indicated that

the impact of the physical abuse was negative, while only one indicated that it was

neither negative nor positive (see Figure 6). The results of the chi-square tests indicated

that both distributions were not uniform because the p values were less than .05 (see

Table 9) and determined there was a significant difference in the responses for the

various categories. In conclusion, the results indicated that the impact of both the

nonphysical and physical abuse was negative.

Figure 5. Impact of nonphysical abuse after removal of respondents who had never
experienced abuse.

70
Figure 6. Impact of physical abuse after removal of respondents who had never
experienced abuse.

Table 9. Chi-Square Analysis for Impact of Nonphysical and Physical Abuse (n = 61)

df χ2 p

Nonphysical abuse 1 13.79 .000

Physical abuse 1 9.31 .002

The job satisfaction variable, as measured by the JDI, was a nominal variable with

two categories: satisfied and dissatisfied. Because the data for the nonphysical and

physical abuse variables were ordinal and the JDI variable was nominal, two chi-square

tests of independence were used to determine whether a significant association exists

between the two abuse variables and the JDI variable.

71
 A chi-square test of independence assesses whether paired observations on two

variables, expressed in a contingency table, are independent of each other (Snedecor &

Cochran, 1989). For the test of independence, a chi-square probability less than .05 is

commonly interpreted by researchers as justification for rejecting the null hypothesis that

the two variables are independent and unrelated, meaning they are only randomly related

(Snedecor & Cochran, 1989). The alternative hypothesis corresponds to the variables

being dependent or related (Snedecor & Cochran, 1989); however, the structure of the

relationship is not specified.

The chi-square test of independence has only one assumption, which is less than

20% of the data cells have fewer than five observations in them. This assumption was

violated for both chi-square analyses because more than 20% of the cells had fewer than

five observations. The main reason for this violation is that there were only two

respondents who indicated that they were dissatisfied with their jobs (see Table 10).

Unfortunately, the small number of respondents who were dissatisfied with their job

made it impossible to determine whether the impact of abusive behaviors in the

workplace is related to job satisfaction.

Table 10. JDI Results

n % Cumulative %

Satisfied 75 96.2 97.4

Dissatisfied 2 2.6 100.0

Total 77 98.7

72
 Research Question 3: Who are the actors (superior, coworker, or

subordinate) of behaviors? The Special Events in the Workplace survey (Keashly et

al., 1994) was also used to address the actors of behaviors in the workplace. Participants

of the survey used the instrument to address the actors of workplace behavior as it

pertains to R3. The questionnaire addressed both nonphysical abuse and physical abuse.

The null hypothesis was that superiors were not the actors of abusive behavior in the

workplace. The alternative hypothesis was that superiors were the actors of abusive

behaviors in the workplace.

The majority of the respondents (n = 51, 65%) indicated that supervisors were the

actors of nonphysical abuse experienced in the workplace (see Table 11). The majority

of the respondents (n = 64, 83.1%) reported that they did not experience physical abuse in

the workplace (see Table 12). To determine if the differences in the response rates were

significant, a chi-square goodness of fit test was conducted on both variables. The results

of the chi-square tests indicated that both distributions were not uniform because the p

values were less than .05 (see Table 13), so there was a significant difference in the

responses for the various categories. In conclusion, the majority of respondents indicated

that the actor of nonphysical abuse was the superior, yet the respondents most often

selected not applicable for physical abuse. If the not applicable responses were removed,

the physical abuse results also indicated that the superior was the actor; however, the

reduced sample size (n = 13) was too small to determine if the result was significant.

73
Table 11. Actor of Nonphysical Abuse

n % Cumulative %

Not applicable 19 24.4 24.4

Superior 51 65.4 89.7

Coworker 6 7.7 97.4

Subordinate 2 2.6 100.0

Total 78 100.0

Table 12. Actor of Physical Abuse

n % Cumulative %

Not applicable 64 83.1 83.1

Superior 7 9.1 92.2

Coworker 3 3.9 96.1

Subordinate 3 3.9 100.0

Total 77 100.0

Table 13. Chi-Square Analysis for Actor of Nonphysical and Physical Abuse (N = 78)

df χ2 p

Nonphysical abuse 3 75.95 .000

Physical abuse 3 139.26 .000

74
 Research Question 4: To what extent is the target’s commitment to the

organization affected by these abusive behaviors? The Special Events in the

Workplace survey (Keashly et al., 1994) was used to address the impact of abusive events

in the workplace and the OCQ was used to assess organizational commitment of the

respondents. In combination, the two surveys were used to address the extent to which

the target‘s commitment to organization is affected by abusive events in the workplace.

Participants of the survey used the OCQ to address workplace commitment as it pertained

to R4. The null hypothesis was that the target‘s commitment to the organization was not

affected by these abusive behaviors. The alternative hypothesis was that the target‘s

commitment was affected by these abusive behaviors.

The 15 questions from the OCQ were used to calculate a mean organizational

commitment score after the six negatively worded questions were reverse scored. The

respondents‘ organizational commitment scores varied from 4.13 to 6.93 on a 7-point

scale with a mean of 5.81 (SD = .621; see Table 14), which indicates that the respondents

were committed to the organization. Figure 7 shows that the organizational commitment

scores are fairly normally distributed with a slight negative skew, such that the scores are

bunched up on the right side of the distribution. The Z score can be calculated for skew,

and when the Z score is greater than 2.58 for samples larger than 30 and smaller than 200,

the distribution is considered to have a significant skew (Field, 2009). The value for the

skew was S = -.614 (Z = 2.26; see Table 14), which was not significant. In addition, the

kurtosis of the data was not significant (K = .147, Z = 0.273; see Table 14). Because the

skew and kurtosis were not significant, the organizational commitment scores were

considered to be normally distributed.

75
Table 14. Respondents’ Organizational Commitment Scores

Organizational commitment score

N 78

Minimum 4.13

Maximum 6.93

Mean 5.81

SD .621

Skewness

Statistic -.615

Std. error .272

Z 2.26

Kurtosis

Statistic .147

Std. error .538

Z 0.273

76
Figure 7. Histogram for mean organizational commitment score.

To test the null hypothesis that the target‘s organizational commitment was not

affected by the abusive behaviors, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if a

significant difference exists in the mean organizational commitment scores for the four

categories of nonphysical abuse. The 17 respondents who indicated that they did not

experience nonphysical abuse were filtered out of the sample. The scores for the groups

were very similar, such that the lowest organizational commitment score was 5.59 for the

neither negative nor positive group and the highest score was 6.05 for the somewhat

negative group (see Table 15). The results of the ANOVA for organizational

commitment score and nonphysical abuse confirmed that there was not a significant

difference in the organizational commitment scores for the four categories of nonphysical

abuse (F = 2.522, p = .067; see Table 16), which was not surprising given how similar the

scores were. The physical abuse data were not tested because the majority of the

77
respondents (83.1%) indicated they were not physically abused and there were too few

respondents (n = 13; see Table 5) who indicated that they were abused to conduct an

ANOVA.

Table 15. Mean Organizational Commitment Score for the Nonphysical Abuse Categories

95% confidence interval for

mean

N Mean SD Lower bound Upper bound

Extremely negative 14 5.66 .544 5.34 5.97

Negative 11 5.69 .475 5.37 6.01

Somewhat negative 20 6.05 .471 5.83 6.27

Neither positive nor negative 16 5.59 .687 5.22 5.95

Total 61 5.77 .573 5.63 5.92

Table 16. ANOVA for Mean Organizational Commitment Score

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Between groups 2.310 3 .770 2.522 .067

Within groups 17.408 57 .305

Total 19.719 60

78
 Summary

Most of the respondents reported that they experienced nonphysical abuse in the

workplace, and the majority of the respondents reported that they did not experience

physical abuse in the workplace. In addition, the majority of respondents who

experienced nonphysical or physical abuse reported that the impact of the abuse was

negative. Superiors were reported as the actors of the nonphysical abuse. The actor of

the physical abuse was not able to be determined because 83% of the respondents

selected not applicable, due to the fact that they had indicated that they had never

experienced physical abuse. The vast majority of the respondents reported that they were

satisfied with their job. A comparison of job satisfaction and either nonphysical or

physical abuse was not possible because only two respondents were dissatisfied with their

job. Most respondents indicated that they had high levels of organizational commitment.

There was not a significant difference in the level of organizational commitment for the

impact of nonphysical abuse categories. Due to the low number of respondents who

reported physical abuse, the level of organizational commitment could not be assessed for

the impact of physical abuse categories.

79
 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION

This chapter concludes the study on the perceived uses of power in U.S. Army

organizations as viewed by retired U.S. Army soldiers. The purpose of this study was to

gain insight on how retired U.S. Army soldiers perceived the use of power within Army

organizations. In addition, the study involved exploring what effect, if any, the perceived

uses of power had on soldier commitment. This chapter presents a summary of findings

and researcher recommendations.

Participants

Seventy-eight U.S. Army retired soldiers participated in the study; active duty

soldiers were excluded from the study. Though surveys between genders were relatively

equally distributed, more males than females returned completed surveys: 46 and 32,

respectively. The participants ranged in the ages between 37 and 65 years of age.

Although the education level of participants varied, the majority of respondents (n = 28)

had bachelor‘s degrees.

Summary of Findings and Practical Implications

Implications were inherent in the results of this study. The findings indicated that

respondents experienced nonphysical abuse in the workplace, but rarely experienced

physical abuse. Respondents substantiated the need to educate superiors and

subordinates alike on the presence of workplace abuse. Because the majority of abuse

was nonphysical, superiors can begin to develop communication skills necessary to

lessen the occurrence, thus minimizing the negative impact caused by the abuse. This is

80
important because those who experienced abuse, either physical or nonphysical,

described the impact as negative; in this aspect, the finding of this study parallels that of

Keashly et al. (1994).

Keashly et al. (1994) found that although positive events occurred, participants

experienced abusive behaviors and ―these events had a noticeable negative impact on the

targets‖ (p. 348). In addition, only four respondents in Keashly et al.‘s study reported

being physically abused. Only two respondents in this study reported being physically

abused. As Keashly et al. suggested, physically abusive behaviors should not be

overlooked because the numbers are small (p. 349).

Superiors were listed as the actors of the nonphysical abuse; however, there was

not enough significant data to show the actors of physical abuse because the majority of

respondents had not experienced physical abuse; nonetheless, superiors were listed as the

actors for nonphysical abuse and they can use this study to address issues related to

abusive behaviors in the workplace. Keashly et al. (1994) also found that bosses ―were

most likely to be the actor for both indices of workplace behaviors‖ (p. 349). Gender was

not relevant in the findings of the study because men and women indicated they shared

similar experiences in terms of both physical and nonphysical abuse. Keashly et al. also

found that ―with respect to targets, overall, men and women do not differ in their

reporting of number, impact, and frequency of abusive events‖ (p. 351).

The majority of respondents expressed that they were satisfied with their jobs.

There was not enough evidence to show a correlation between job satisfaction and either

physical or nonphysical abuse because too few respondents indicated that they were

dissatisfied with their jobs. Consequently, there were also too few respondents who were

81
dissatisfied with their jobs to assess the impact of abuse, nonphysical or physical, on

organizational commitment. Unlike the results of this study, Keashly et al. (1994) found

that the quality of interpersonal relations were direct reflections of participant job

satisfaction and that ―with respect to abusive interpersonal events, the greater the number,

frequency, and perceived impact of the items endorsed, the less satisfied participants

reported being with their work on the job, supervision, co-workers, and the job in

general‖ (p. 351). The dissatisfaction of Keashly et al.‘s respondents is important to note

because they had yet to retire, much like soldiers who remain on active duty and unlike

the participants of this study who had already retired.

The respondents in this survey were retired U.S. Army soldiers. Therefore, it is

apparent that the perceived abusive behaviors experienced did not cause them to leave

their employer before retirement. However, Keashly et al. (1994) report ―13.6% of

participants left the organization as a result of their negative experiences‖ (p. 351). The

differences in actions taken by each group could be a direct reflection of commitment to

the organization. This study found that a vast majority of respondents were committed to

the organization, whereas Keashly et al. found that participants were less committed with

each occurrence of an abusive event.

The dynamics of the workplace for each study group could also have been a factor

affecting commitment. While participants of Keashly et al.‘s (1994) study ―were

required to have paid work experience within the last 12 months‖ (p. 345), this study

required participants to have served no less than 20 years is the U.S. Army. Dupré and

Day (2007) noted, ―It is imperative that military organizations learn how human resource

management practices can be effective in combating the possible negative ramifications‖

82
(p. 186) of particular work environments. These work environments can include, but are

not limited to, those where abusive behaviors in the workplace exist.

Need for Future Research

There is a definite need for future research in the areas of perception,

commitment, and job satisfaction as it pertains to soldiers. Dupré and Day (2007)

contended that ―effective human resource management practices are important to all

organizations; such practices are particularly relevant to military organizations‖ (p. 186).

Hinkin and Schriesheim (1994) explained, ―Although the ability to exercise power over

others throughout an organization is very important, of possibly greater importance to

both organizations and their managers are the power relationships which exist between

managers and their immediate ‗direct reports‘ or ‗subordinates‘‖ (para. 3). Superiors and

subordinates share special relationships and, in theory, how one is perceived by the other

may be as important as that which exists in actuality.

The researcher strongly believes that additional research is required and though

Hinkin and Schriesheim (1994) and Dupré and Day (2007) note compelling observations

that would suggest the same, the limitations that existed in this study provide further data

to support moving forward with additional research in these areas.

Limitations of this study were noted:

1. The population of this study was limited to retired U.S. Army soldiers whose

contact information was known and to those who agreed to participate in the

study. Active duty soldiers were excluded from the study. Therefore, the

results of the study could not be generalized to other populations.

83
 2. The data were dependent on the assumption that respondents could accurately

recall instances of uses of power and commitment despite the time that had

elapsed between retirement and participation in this study.

3. The study was limited to a small sample size. Though it was determined that

abusive behaviors in the workplace did exist, there were too few respondents

who indicated they were dissatisfied with their jobs to determine if there was a

relationship between abuse behavior in the workplace and job satisfaction.

4. The data relied on the willingness of participants to answer truthfully

questions that may have shed negative light on an organization to which they

were loyal for so long because there is a strong sense of commitment and

camaraderie associated with being a U.S. Army soldier.

Dupré and Day (2007) noted, ―Supervisors have a great influence on the job

satisfaction of employees. The consideration a supervisor has for his/her subordinates‘

feelings, well-being, and contributions is an important predictor of job satisfaction‖ (p.

189) and may, in turn, be an important predictor of subordinate commitment. Eccles and

Garminer (2003) contended, ―To get employees to be committed requires leaders to

understand what effect their actions have on the employees‖ (p. 1). Calder (as cited in

Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1994) noted ―that to better understand the leadership process it is

important to understand the perceptions of followers‖ (para. 4).

Recommendations

Mintzberg (as cited in Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1994) explained, ―Researchers

hesitate to venture into organizations to study power directly and, instead, tend to

examine power from a ‗macro‘ perspective‖ (para. 2). However, Hinkin and Schriesheim

84
(1994) noted that ―since subordinates react to the behaviors and attributes of their

managers, as they perceive them, it seems reasonable to expect that perceived supervisory

behaviors will thus affect subordinates‘ perceptions of their supervisor‘s power‖ (para.

3). Dupré and Day (2007) stated, ―It is important to note that individuals‘ perceptions

influence their behaviors, attitudes, and well-being (e.g., Frese & Zapf, 1988), and in this

regard it is important to continue to focus on perceptions as well‖ (p. 196). Therefore,

studying uses of power and the perceived effect the use of power has on subordinates was

an essential component when conducting this study and why it is recommended that

further studies include participants who are still on active duty.

The researcher‘s initial intent was to conduct this study with a population of

active duty soldiers. However, even after compliance from a brigade commander and

company commander was given, one battalion commander indicated that he was

unwilling to allow active duty soldiers in his unit to participate in the study. The

researcher changed the study‘s population to retired U.S. Army soldiers, for whom

commanders‘ permission are not required.

Additionally, Dupré and Day (2007) noted, ―The impact of perceived

organizational support may extend to employees‘ nonwork lives‖ (p. 189). Recently,

there have been several documented cases of active duty soldiers committing infractions

outside of the workplace. It would be beneficial to explore whether these infractions are

related to perceived organizational support or abusive behaviors in the workplace.

Though the current research involving retired U.S. Army soldiers and the former

research conducted by Stowers (2010) involving U.S. Army Reserve soldiers both show a

substantial finding concerning organizational commitment, further research should be

85
done with U.S. Army active duty soldiers. Unlike U.S. Army Reserve soldiers who have

additional commitments outside of the U.S. Army Reserve and retired U.S. Army soldiers

who were committed to the organization enough to remain until retirement, active duty

soldiers live Army life every day and can provide a more recent, detailed description of

how they believe power is used and the effect, if any, it has on their commitment to the

organization they serve.

Conclusion

Superiors are entrusted with many duties, some of which are to train, encourage,

and protect their subordinates. Therefore, abuse of any kind, whether nonphysical or

physical, and by anyone causes an unnecessary disturbance in the workplace that could

lead to mission interruption and halt mission accomplishment. It is in the best interest of

the organization and its employees to find ways to minimize and then eventually

eliminate abusive behaviors in the workplace.

Operating in a negative work environment can have a detrimental effect on job

satisfaction. Negative work environments can affect unit cohesiveness which is vitally

important to all organizations, but especially important to military organizations because

employees depend on each other for protection in both peacetime and wartime situations.

Navigating through a field of negativity between coworkers can be difficult when one is

perceived to be abused by the other.

However, although the majority of respondents indicated that they experienced

nonphysical abuse, an even larger majority of respondents indicated that they were

―satisfied‖ with their organization indicating that there was some degree of commitment.

This suggests that this population bought into the organization‘s mission statement, and

86
this bodes well for U.S. Army units. The strong sense of commitment and job

satisfaction noted by survey participants reveals their dedication to the organization and

gives credence to the Army‘s seven core values: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service,

honor, integrity, and personal sacrifice.

87
 REFERENCES

Aitken, C., Power, R., & Dwyer, R. (2008). A very low response rate in an on-line survey
of medical practitioners. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 32,
288-289.

Allen, N., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

Altimus, C., Jr., & Tersine, R. (1973). Chronological age and job satisfaction: The young
blue collar worker. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 53-66.

Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment

and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Arkin, W. M., Handler, J. M., Morrissey, J. A., & Walsh, J. M. (1990). Encyclopedia of
the U.S. military. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Army Regulation 27-10. (2005). Military justice. Retrieved from

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r27_10.pdf

Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schieder, R. (1992). The influence of prior
commitment to institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they
are, the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 241-261

Brooks, A. K. (1994). Power and the production of knowledge: Collective team learning
in work organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5, 213.
Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID 49050)

Buchanan, B., II. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of

managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Charlton, J. (2002). The military quotation book.. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books.

Collins, K. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2006). Prevalence of mixed-methods

sampling designs in social science research. Evaluation & Research in Education,
19(2), 83-101. doi:10.2167/eri421.0

Colman, A. M., Norris, E., & Preston, C. C. (1997). Comparing rating scales of different
lengths: Equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scale. Psychological
Report, 80, 355-362.

88
Conger, J. A. (1990, Autumn). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19
(2), 44-55.

Cornyn, D. (2008). The military, freedom of speech, and the Internet: Preserving
operational security and service members‘ right of free speech. Texas Law
Review, 87, 463-486.

Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., & Associates, G. (1999). Culture specific
and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are the attributes
of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed. Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 219-256.

Donnelly, E. A. (2001). Hierarchical abuse of power in a higher education institution: A

qualitative case study of subordinate perspective (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3057272)

Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural
variation. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta
(Eds.), Culture and organizations (pp. 669-719). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downey, H., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. (1975). Congruence between individual needs,
organizational climate, job satisfaction and performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 18, 149-155. Retrieved from Business Source Complete
database.

Dunham, R., Smith, F., & Blackburn, R. (1977). Validation of the index of
organizational, reaction with the JDI, the MSQ, and faces scales. Academy of
Management Journal, 20, 420-432.

Dupré, K. E., & Day, A. L. (2007). The effects of supportive management and job quality
on the turnover intentions and health of military personnel. Human Resource
Management, 46, 185-201.

Eccles, S., & Garminer, G. (2003). The relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as perceived by irrigation workers in a quasi
irrigation company in Jamaica (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3096346)

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27,

31-41.

Field, P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.

Francesco, A. M., & Chen, Z. X. (2000). Cross-cultural differences within a single

culture: Power distance as a moderator of the participation. Outcome

89
 relationship in the People’s Republic of China . BRC Papers on cross-cultural
management. Retrieved on 14 December 2009 from
http://net2.hkbu.edu.hk/~brc/CCMP200007.pdf on

Frost, T.F.& Moussavi, F. (1992). The relationship between leader power base and
influence: The moderating role of trust. Journal of Applied Business Research,
8(4), 9-14

Golembiewski, R., & Yeager, S. (1978). Testing the applicability of the JDI to various
demographic grouping. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 514-519.

Gunn, B. (1995). The paradigm shift in university management. International Journal of

Educational Management, 9, 38-40.

Gupta, B., & Sharma, N. K. (2008). Compliance with bases of power and subordinates‘
perception of superiors: Moderating effect of quality of interaction. Singapore
Management Review, 30, 1-24.

Harris, C. (2008). Mentorship fosters career commitment: The influence mentors have on
U.S. Army service members (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3330688)

Headquarters, Department of the Army. (1992, January). Legal guide for commanders
(Field Manual 27-1). Retrieved from
https://akocomm.us.army.mil/usapa/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_aa/pdf/fm27_1.pdf

Hildebrand, J., & Markovic, D. (2007). Systemic therapists‘ experience of powerlessness.

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 28(4), 191-199.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). An examination of subordinate-perceived

relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and leader bases of
power. Human Relations, 47, 779-779.

Holmberg, I., & Akerblom, S. (2006). Modeling leadership—implicit leadership theories

in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22, 307-329.

Horowitz, A., & Golob, T. (1979). Survey data reliability effects on results of consumer
preference analyses. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 532-538.

Huntington, S. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-
military relations. Cambridge, MA, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organizations: A study of commitment

mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-517.

90
Kantor, J. (1991). The effects of computer administration and identification on the job
descriptive index (JDI). Journal of Business & Psychology, 5, 309-323.

Kaufman, C. E., & Ramarao, S. (2005). Community confidentiality, consent, and the
individual research process: Implications for demographic research. Population
Research and Policy Review, 24, 149-173.

Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A
preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9, 341-357.

Khatri, N. (2009). Consequences of power distance orientation in organizations. Vision:

The Journal of Business Perspective, 13, 1-9. doi:10.1177/097226290901300101

Kipnis, D. (1987). Psychology and behavioral technology. American Psychologist, 42,

30-36. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.42.1.30

Leonidou, L. C., Talias, M. A., & Leonidou, C. N. (2007). Exercised power as a driver of
trust and commitment in cross-border industrial buyer–seller relationships.
Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 92-103. doi.10-
1016/j.indmarman.2007.08.006

Macias, W., Springston, J., Lariscy, R., & Neustifter, B. (2008). A 13-year content
analysis of survey methodology in communication related journals. Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 30, 79-94.

Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husén & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The

international encyclopedia of education, 8(2), 4424-4429.

Mathieu, A., Bruvold, N., & Ritchey, P. (2000). Subcultural research on organizational
commitment with the 15 OCQ invariant instrument. Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 20(3), 129-138.

Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard

Educational Review, 62, 279-301.

Merriman, C. (2005). Employee commitment and organizational performance: A case

study of a high-technology start-up (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3187648).

Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989).
Organizational commitment and job performance: It‘s the nature of the
commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156.

91
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitchell, M., & Ambrose, M. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and
the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1159-1168. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159

Mugo F. W. (2010). Sampling in research. Retrieved on 11 March 2010 from

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Mugo/Tutorial.htm

Mulder, M. (1977). The daily power game. Leiden, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Mulder, M., de Jong, R., Koppelaar, L., & Verhage, J. (1986). Power, situation, and
leaders‘ effectiveness: An organizational field study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 566-570. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.566

Muringaseril, S. (2007). Control concepts in multinational Corporations (MNCs) – The

case of Swiss MNCs with foreign Subsidiaries in India. (pp. 40-61). Available
from Business Source Complete database. (Accession No. 35635054).

Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation
processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 549-565.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Understanding power in organizations. California Management

Review, 34(2), 29-49.

Prendergast, C. (1993). A theory of yes men. American Economic Review, 83, 757-770.

Rahim, M., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model of leader
power, subordinates‘ styles of handling conflict, and job performance.
International Journal of Conflict Management (1997-2002), 12(3), 191-211.
doi.10-1108/eb022855

Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: origins and recent developments. Journal of
Social Issues, 49(4), 227-251.

Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring
a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 28, 307-322.

Roller, M. (1997). Control is elusive in research design. Marketing News, 31(19), 17

92
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data
collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing
& Health, 23, 246-255.

Sharma, D., Borna, S., & Stearns, J. (2009). An investigation of the effects of corporate
ethical values on employee commitment and performance: Examining the
moderating role of perceived fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 251-260.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). Measurement of satisfaction in work
and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.

Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical methods (8th ed.). Ames: Iowa
State University Press.

Steyrer, J., Schiffinger, M., & Lang, R. (2008). Organizational commitment—A missing
link between leadership behavior and organizational performance? Journal of
Management, 24(4), 364-374. doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2008.04.002

Stowers, D. (2010). Perceived organizational support and organizational commitment in

the United States Army Reserve (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3432515)

Sue-Chan, C., & Ong, M. (2002). Goal assignment and performance: Assessing the
mediating roles of goal commitment and self-efficacy and the moderating role of
power distance. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Making, 89(2),
1140-1161. doi.org/10.1016/50749-5978 (02) 00017-1.

Tepper, B. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis and

research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Qualitative validity. Retrieved from

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.htm

U.S. Department of Defense. (2000, June). Department of Defense Directive (No.

7050.6). Retrieved from http://www.armyg1.army.mil/EO/docs/d70506p.pdf

Velasquez, M. G. (2006). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (6th ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Pearson Education.

Vredenburgh, D., & Brender, Y. (1998). The hierarchical abuse of power in work
organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1337-1347.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.

93
Waldman, D. A., Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N., House, R. J., Adetoun, B., Barrasa,
A., . . . (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social
responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries.
Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 823-837.

Wolverton, M. (2009). Research design, hypothesis testing, and sampling. Appraisal

Journal, 77, 370-382.

Yu, J., & Cooper, H. (1983). A quantitative review of research design effects on response
rates to questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 36-44.

94
APPENDIX A. ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (OCQ)

From A. Mathieu, N. Bruvold, and P. Ritchey, "Subcultural Research on Organizational

Commitment With the 15 OCQ Invariant Instrument," Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 20(3), 129-138. Copyright 2000 by M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Reprinted with
permission. All Rights Reserved. Not for reproduction.

Please respond to the statements below using the 7-point Likert Scale. The responses are
as follows: 1) strongly disagree; 2) disagree; 3) disagree somewhat; 4) undecided; 5)
agree somewhat; 6) agree; and 7 strongly agree. Please ensure your answers to questions
are based on your experience as a U.S. Army soldier and are not based on any civilian
position you held prior to joining the Armed Forces.

OC1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order
to help this organization become successful.

OC2. I talk up the organization to my friends as a great organization to work for.

OC3R. I feel very little loyalty to this organization.

OC4. I will accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for the
organization.

OC5. I find that my values and the organization‘s values are very similar.

OC6. I am proud to tell others that I am part of the organization.

OC7. I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of
work is similar.

OC8. The organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.

OC9. It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave.

C10. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for, over others at the
time I joined.

OC11. There is not too much to be gained by sticking with the organization indefinitely.

OC12. Often, I find it difficult to agree with the organization‘s policies on important
matters relating to its employees

OC13. I really care about the fate of the organization.

OC14. For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.

95
OC15. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part.

96
 APPENDIX B. SPECIAL EVENTS IN THE WORKPLACE

From L. Keashly, V. Trott, and L. M. MacLean, “Abusive Behavior in the Workplace: A

Preliminary Investigation,” Violence and Victims, 9(4), 341-57. ProQuest Medical
Library database. (Document ID: 1469540891). Copyright 1994 by Springer Publishing
Company. Reprinted by permission of L. Keashly.

Please review the descriptive list of phrases below. There are three (3) categories listed
for each Act: Frequency, Actor and Impact.

Impact (What effect did it have on you?): Extremely Negative; Negative; Somewhat
Negative; Neither positive nor negative; Somewhat positive; Positive; and Extremely
positive.

Frequency (How often did it happen?): Never; Once; A few times; Monthly; Weekly;
Daily

Actors (Who was most responsible for carrying out the act?): Not Applicable; Superior;
Co-worker; Subordinate

CATEGORIES

POSITIVE

Praised for accomplishments

Consulted for opinion
Given Credit for initiative
Recognized for work
Rewarded as a good employee
Given earned raise
Politely asked to perform duty
Thanked for staying late
Told my feelings were important
Made to feel comfortable
Apologized to for inappropriate behavior
Treated as an equal
Included in joking
Given constructive feedback
Dealt with privately on mistakes
Able to negotiate demands
Told by others enjoy me
Valuable to the organization

97
ABUSIVE

Intimidated by unreasonable demands

Criticized for taking initiative
Threatened unfairly with termination
Denied raise without reason
Ordered to stay late
Credit for work given to others
Asked to do things with which uncomfortable
Belittled intellectually
Put down in front of others
Told incompetent
Yelled at
Accused of wrongdoing
Jokes made at my expense
Told feelings unimportant
Told my ideas unwanted
Given the silent treatment
Frightened by someone‘s behavior toward me
Subjected to angry outbursts
Constant criticism of abilities
Talked to sarcastically
Glared at
Target of tantrums
Revealing private info
Rumors spread about me
Treated like incompetent
Sworn at
Blamed for other‘s errors
Accused of deliberate error

PHYSICAL ABUSE

Items thrown at me
Pushed or grabbed

98
 APPENDIX C. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

Q. Gender

What is your sex?

o Male
o Female

Q. Age

o 37 – 45
o 46 - 55
o 56 - and over

Q. What was your rank when you retired?

o E1-E4 (PVT-SPC)
o E5-E6 (SGT-SSG)
o E7-E9 (SFC-CSM)
o W1-W3 (W01-CW3)
o W4-W5 (CW4-CW5)
o 01-03 (2LT-CPT)
o 04-06 (MAJ-COL)

Q. How many years did you serve in the Army?

o less than 20 years

o 20 -25 years
o 26 years and over

Q. Education

What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? If currently
enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received.

o High school graduate - high school diploma or the equivalent (for example: GED)
o Some college credit, but less than 1 year

99
o 1 or more years of college, no degree
o Associate degree (for example: AA, AS)
o Bachelor‘s degree (for example: BA, AB, BS)
o Master‘s degree (for example: MA, MS, MBA)
o Professional degree (for example: MD, DDS)
o Doctorate degree (for example: PhD, EdD)

Q. Ethnicity

Please specify your ethnicity.

o Hispanic or Latino
o Not Hispanic or Latino

Q. Race

Please specify your race.

o American Indian or Alaska Native

o Asian
o Black or African American
o Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
o White or Caucasian

100
 APPENDIX D. JOB DESCRIPTION INDEX

From P. C. Smith, L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin, The Measurement of Satisfaction in

Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes, 1969. Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally. Copyright 1969 by Rand McNally & Company. Reprinted by permission of C.
L. Hulin.

Please indicate your assessment of the culmination of work, pay, promotion, supervision
and co-workers while serving on active duty. For the five categories listed below, place a
―y‖ for yes, ―n‖ for no, and ―?‖ for undecided, for each of the descriptive words/phrases
that best describes your experience while serving in the U.S. Army. Please do not assess
your current employment or any employment outside of the military service after your
retirement.

Y for ―Yes‖ if it describes your work while on active duty

N for ―No‖ if it does NOT describe your work while on active duty
? for ―?‖ if you cannot decide

PAST WORK

___ Fascinating
___ Routine
___ Satisfying
___ Boring
___ Good
___ Creative
___ Respected
___ Pleasant
___ Useful
___ Tiresome
___ Challenging
___ Frustrating
___ Gives sense of Accomplishment

PAST PAY

___ Income adequate for normal expenses

___ Income provides luxuries
___ Insecure
___ Less than I deserve
___ Highly paid

101
___ Underpaid

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROMOTION

___ Good opportunities for advancement

___ Opportunities somewhat limited
___ Promotion on ability
___ Unfair promotion policy
___ Infrequent promotions
___ Regular promotions

SUPERVISION

___ Asks my advice

___ Hard to please
___ Impolite
___ Praises good work
___ Tactful
___ Doesn‘t supervise enough
___ Quick-tempered
___ Stubborn
___ Knows job well
___ Intelligent
___ Leaves me on my own
___ Around when needed
___ Lazy

COWORKERS

___ Stimulating
___ Boring
___ Slow
___ Ambitious
___ Responsible
___ Intelligent
___ Smart
___ Lazy
___ Unpleasant
___ No privacy
___ Active
___ Narrow interests
___ Loyal

102