Authority at Work Internal Models and Their Organizational Consequences

8/17/2019 Authority at Work Internal Models and Their Organizational Consequences

1/35

* cademy of Manag ement Review

1994.

Vol. 19, No. 1, 17 -50.

A U T H O R I T Y A T W O R K : I N T E R N A L M O D E L S A N D

TH EIR O R G A N IZ A T IO N A L C O N S E Q U E N C E S

W IL L IA M A . K A H N

K A T H Y E . K R A M

B o s t o n U n i v e r s it y

This article focuses on how organization members authorize and de-

authorize both others and themselves in the course of doing their

work. W e argue that these authorizing process es are sh aped , in part,

by enduring, often unacknowledged stances toward authority

itself

In tum, we suggest that these stances are enacted in similar ways

across hierarchical and collaborative work arrangements and across

various roles and p ositions. T hese stan ces ar e— as H irschhom (1990)

suggested—internalized models W orking from a th eoretical frame-

work that combines concepts from developmental and clinical psy-

chology, group dynamics, and organizational behavior, we define

and illustrate three types of internal models of authority: dependence,

counterdep enden ce, and interdepend ence. W e offer propositions

about how these internal models influence organization members

behaviors during task performances generally, and more specifically,

as members of hierarchical dyad s and work teams. W e also suggest

propositions about how these internal models of authority are trig-

gered and change in the context of organizational life. Finally, we

offer research methods and strategies by which to empirically exam-

ine these propositions.

Quite a lot is known about the nature and use of authority in tradi-

tional hierarchical organizations. Authority is defined as the given right

to perform roles; such rights are legitimated by consensual decisions

codified in constitutions, contracts, charters, rulings, and other accepted

institutiona l sanctions (Cartwright, 1965; Gilman, 1962; Katz Kahn,

1987).

Work organizations depend on mem bers occupying roles of author-

ity to ensure the pred ictable performance of organ izational ta sks (Simon,

1947). It is when organiza tion members occupy their work roles (i.e., iden-

tify them selves with the authority m and ated to those roles) that they have

the legitimate power to pursue their rights, duties, and obligations in the

service of their tasks. Authority offers a legitimate base to have power

and from which to influence others and bring about the completion of

work task s. It is legitimate power vested in particular people or positions

for system purposes (Weber, 1947).

This definition of authority is particularly well suited to traditional

hierarchical organizations that operate according to powers vested in

specific offices and, therefore, officeholders. Organization members' tra-


2/35

8 cademy of Management Review January

ditionally legitimate rights to wield power derive from occupying offices

that have affixed to them particular rules of influence, which specify the

officeholders by whom they are influenced and those over whom they

wield influence (Barnard, 1938; Simon,

1947;

W eber,

1947).

These rules are

woven into the fabric of the traditional hierarchical bureaucracy, giving

order and predictability to transactions among officeholders. It is increas -

ingly the case, however, that traditional hierarchical bureaucratic orga-

nizations are changing, and with them are changing the ways in which

authority and power are distributed among their members. Handy (1989:

130) wro te convincingly that the cha ng ing complexity, variety, and

spread of reaction which is now a feature of so many organizations

makes it increasing ly difficult to specify and reify in advance exactly who

should be doing what, when, in what order, and with whom for successful

task performance. Thus, organization members must negotiate such pa-

rameters themselves. Hirschhorn (1988, 1990) pushed this idea further,

noting that the pace, depth, and accumulation of change in the postin-

dustrial organizational setting requires the maximum use of human re-

sources. Such use, in turn, results in collaboration between leaders and

subord inates whereby duty and authority are negotiated: The leader no

longer charts the organization's work, with subordinates lined up to do

the bidding. Instead, the leader and the subordinates must collaborate

(Hirschhorn, 1990: 529). Such collaboration is at the core of w hat Lawler

(1988) describes as high involvement systems.

Such collaboration is based on negotiated authority, whereby leader

and subord inates jointly decide the scope of the power each h as over their

task s (Handy, 1989). Such decisions authorize lead ers and subord inates to

be resp onsible for certain aspects of task performance. Authorizing is the

giving of authority, that is, the right to do work. Organization members

are authorized not simply when they are ass igned responsibility for ta sks

(i.e.,

de lega ted authority) but also when they are supported by others who

are either formally or informally connected to those roles. Organization

members are de-authorized when such support is withheld (even when

their rights have been formally delegated). In traditional bureaucratic

organizations, officeholders become authorized by the power of the of-

fices they occupy. In more collaborative work arrang em ents , organization

members become authorized le ss through their identification with partic-

ular offices and more through their negotiations with other members

about task performances. As these newer organization forms become

more prevalent and necessary, it becomes increasingly appropriate to

conceptualize authority in terms of its underlying process dimensions:

the ways that organization m embers authorize and de-authorize both oth-

ers and themselves in the course of doing their work.

Although authorizing and de-authorizing processes have not been


3/35

1994 ahn and iam

19

thority to accomplish tasks is not simply a matter of legitimation and

mandate, it is also a

result of ctu l

interactions between

le ders nd

followers

(Gabarro

Kotter, 1980). It is within such interactions that the

scope an d limits of the authority of both leade rs an d followers a re nego-

tiated (Bendix, 1974). Both lead ers an d followers are separa tely interpret-

ing the nature of the leader's authority (i.e., given rights, duties, obliga-

tions, privileges, and powers), which cannot translate into power and

influence un less it is acknowledged by followers a s valid (Gouldner, 1954;

Simon, 1947). Interactions between leaders and followers become joint

interpretations of authority, because each one can increase or decrease

the other's authority by offering or withholding legitimating support

(Bass, 1990) irrespective of formal delegation of task responsibility. This

interpretive process is often unconscious, a s Barnard

(1938)

pointed out in

defining the zone of

indifference

to describe how followers autom atically

defined their lead ers' orders as acceptable u nless the illegitimate nature

of those orders (on various dimensions) triggered their conscious ques-

tioning. What is ac tually triggered is the conscious process of authorizing

and de-authorizing oneself and others to engage in work.

Authority Relations

Researchers know little else directly about authorizing and de-

authorizing processes in work organizations. However, there is a long

tradition of research and theory on authority relations (which generally

does not include the new collaborative organization forms), which po ints

to two fundamental types of influences—sifuafionaJ and individual— on

how organization members define and create their authority relations.

Each of these influences shapes the dynamics of authority and power

(Bass,

1990; House, 1988). The situational factors generally focus on how

organization members are externally driven to conform with existing

norms of thought and action, with a primary focus on followership. The

literature on individual factors generally relates to how individuals are

internally driven toward power in certain ways, with a primary focus on

leadership. Each influence offers clues to key components of authorizing

and de-authorizing processes.

Situational factors Research in the domain of situational factors has

been focused on how the social structure of situations presses individuals

to create and obey rules of hierarchical authority. Perhaps the most well-

known research is Milgram's (1974) set of experiments showing the con-

ditions under which subjects obeyed authority figures to the extent that

they acted inhum anely toward others while disavowing responsibility for

their actions. In the initial experiment, 65 percent of the subjects followed

the authority figure's instructions to continue pun ishing the learner

(i.e.,

confederate) until they had reached the maximum shock intensity

of

450 volts. Milgram noted that the key variable was the sense of dimin-


4/35

20 Academy oi Managem ent Review January

Variations on the basic experiment showed that manipulations that in-

creased the psychological distance between teacher and learner de-

creased subjects' perceptions of personal responsibility, which increased

their obedience to authority. Milgram's experiments indicated the power

that social situations have to dictate how members enacted their roles as

both subordinates (to legitimate authority) and authority figures (to

learners ). They showed how even temporary social systems exert pres-

sures on peop le to act a s if they have no choice but to create a nd reinforce

particular types of authority relations.

Another classic social psychological experiment attests to the power

of situations to determine how people create and respond within authority

relations through the roles they assum e. Z imbardo's (Haney, Banks, &

Zimbardo,

1973)

experiment involved the creation of a temporary system,

a prison, and the randomly assigned casting of individuals into system

roles, prisoner or guard . In little time the prisoners accep ted them-

selves as inferior and acted passively, whereas the guards accepted

themselves as superior and engaged in episodes of abusive, authoritar-

ian behavior. The subjects thus projected themselves emotionally and

cognitively into the roles into which they were physically place d, on the

ba sis of their stereotypic und erstandin gs of the norms by which prisoners

and guards act and prison systems operate. On the basis of accepting

those norms, Zimbardo's subjects created and enacted stereotypic rela-

tions of authority between the powerful and the powerless. The experi-

menters halted the experiment six days into a planned two-week simu-

lation becau se of the emotional force with which the subjects took up their

roles as superior an d subordinate. The experiment's duration w as enough

to show how powerfully the roles that individuals occupy—even in tem-

porary social systems—shape the relations of authority they create and

enact. It also showed how drawn people are to adopt norms to help them

define their situations and themselves, regulate their behaviors, locate

themselves hierarchically, and create authority relations.

These classic studies indicate the power of roles and norms to shape

people's experiences and behaviors in authority relations. O rganizations

rely on people occupying given roles to reduce the variability, instability,

and unpredictability accompanying human behavior and to withstand

personnel turnover (Katz

Kahn, 1987). Also, they traditionally have re-

lied on predictable authority relationships between superior and subor-

dinate that follow accepted norms of relative power and powerlessness,

respectively (Simon, 1947). Although these authority relations typically

are neither so brutally polarized as those evidenced in Zimbardo's exper-

iment nor so explicitly fraught with anxiety an d p ain a s those evidenced

in Milgram's work, they are nevertheless subject to similar social, role,

and normative pressures (and may lead to equally brutal results; cf.

Arendt's [1965] banality of evil . The more contemporary var iable of orga-


5/35

1994 ahn and iam

21

the situational influences that create and maintain particular types of

authority relations.

The implication h ere is that when individuals enter into both tempo-

rary and ongoing systems, there are cues that help them take up certain

types of roles (e.g., teacher , prisoner ), follow certa in behavio ral

norms, and create certain types of authority relations. These cues lead to

the authorizing of formal leaders occupying certain offices, regardless of

the individuals occupying particular superior and subordinate positions.

What is left unexplained, however, is why some individuals in such sit-

uations do

ot

create expected authority re lations; that is, why

35

percent

of Milgram's (1974) subjects did not show complete obedience to the au-

thority figure but acted counternormatively. There are individual-level

differences that—in conjunction with situational influences—help ex-

plain how individuals occupy superior and subordinate roles.

Individual factors A variety of indiv idual factors h elp account for

how organization members frame and perform superior and subordinate

roles.

In terms of enduring personality variab les, two concepts illuminate

the relation between personality and power. One concept is the authori-

tar ian persona lity (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson,

Sanford, 1950),

measured by the F-scale, which is associated with power-seeking and

personality attributes that include conservatism, emotional coldness,

hostility toward minority groups, and resistance to change (Bass, 1990)—

attributes indicating rigidity. Researchers have explored the relations

between individuals' F-scores and the types of leaders they prefer (high

F-scores prefer autocratic leaders and low F-scores prefer consultative

leaders), and the effects that authority-relation matches and mismatches

have on both leaders and followers (see Bass, 1990). A second concept is

M achiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970), which refers to the extent to

which people are impervious to and resist social influences and emo-

tional or moral considerations (high Machs), or are susceptible to such

influences and are distracted by interpersonal concerns (low Machs). Re-

searchers have noted the generally consistent relation between ex-

pressed Machiavellian attitudes and behaviors (Epstein, 1969). According

to these concepts, individuals have particular motives or needs to estab-

lish specific types of authority relations in which they feel comfortable.

The implication of thes e trad itional concepts, for our purposes h ere,

is that people are drawn to create or enact authority relations partly on

the basis of compelling, deep -seated personality attribu tes of which they

may be only partly aware (McClelland, 1985). Recent research similarly

suggests a connection between individual differences and constructed

relationships. Researchers have noted how various self-concepts shape

organization members' abilities to perform effectively. Concepts that

ha ve received attention in this regard include self-efficacy (Bandura,

1982), self-confidence (Mowday, 1978), self-understanding (McCall, Lom-


6/35

22

cademy of Management Review

January

the research is that members who are high on such self-concept dimen-

sions are better able to create and push toward goals, and they display

(and gain) leadersh ip characteristics (Bennis Nanus, 1985). A related

research stream has focused on the personal characters of leaders and

executives, in whom certain tendencies toward defensiveness (Argyris,

1982, 1990) or personal achievement (Kaplan, 1991) lead toward the cre-

ation of particular (and variously effective) au thority rela tions. There als o

is a more unconscious, psychopathological relation between character

and leadership style, as was noted by Kets de Vries and Miller (1987).

They describe how neurotic styles of leaders, based on unconscious fan-

tasies,

create shared pathologies in their systems mirroring those fanta-

sies (e.g., persecution, helplessness, narcissism, compulsiveness, schiz-

oid detachm ent). The vehicles by which these neurotic styles are enac ted

and shared are the authority relations established by leaders and mem-

bers as they interact.

The individual factors described here help explain how organization

members engage in particular types of leadership behaviors, based on

personality attributes and self-concepts, that offset some of the situa-

tional influences reviewed above. The literature reviewed here suggests

that individuals are internally motivated to repeatedly develop certain

types of authority relations that enable them to use or react to power in

ways that are comfortable or necessary for them, for whatever conscious

or unconscious reasons. The authority relations that individuals create

are thus the vehicles through which they satisfy their needs or express

their attributes.

Implications. This brief review of the traditional literatures on au-

thority relations suggests particular gaps in knowledge. First, it seems

that the theory and research about situational influences on authority

relations is more developed than that about individual-level influences;

for example, researchers have not yet conceptualized an individual dif-

ference variable that would speak directly to what drives people to au-

thorize and de-authorize themselves and others in patterned ways. Sec-

ond, it is clear that researchers have, as noted above, generally linked

followership (i.e., obedience) to situational influences and leadership to

individual difference influences, and they have kept the two domains

separate (for an important exception, see Burns, 1978). It is likely, how-

ever, that followership and leadership are more tightly linked within in-

dividuals; that is, people have particular stances toward authority rela-

tions that affect their actions as hierarchical superiors and subordinates

alike, and in the more collaborative work arrangement, as co-workers

(Hirschhom, 1990). This article begins to fill these gaps in knowledge by

building on two implications from the literature reviewed above.

First, the situational literature implies that authorizing is related to

the al lowing of personal thoughts, feelings, and beliefs—one s own and


7/35

1994

ahn and iam 23

are imported into role performances. When the 35 percent minority of

Milgram's subjects authorized themselves to be responsible for their ac-

tions as subordinates, they did so by taking seriously their personal be-

liefs and feelings and using them as the standards by which they acted.

Most of M ilgram's sub jects, like those of Zimbardo, did just the opposite,

keeping their personal sensibilities out of the roles—superior or subor-

dinate— into which they were cast. In both situations, there were extern al

cues suggesting that subjects split off their personal feelings, beliefs, and

though ts and leave them o utside the confines of given hierarch ical roles.

It is likely that subjects' resp onses were re lated to some sort of individual-

level factor that led some to follow internal cues directing them to access

rather than split off personal dimensions and take rather than deny per-

sonal responsibility. Authorizing, then, is defined not simply in terms of

giving the right to do work; it is also giving the right to bring the per-

sonal self (one's own or another's) into the work role (see Gould, 1993;

Hirschhorn, 1985, 1990; Kahn, 1990a, 1992).

A second, less visible implication of the traditional literatures is the

importance placed on how childhood factors shape authority relations

and thus authorizing dynamics. Both situational and personality re-

searchers emphasize childhood factors. Milgram noted that one of the

crucial factors in obedience to authority was the socialization history

within one's family, whereas Zimbardo attributed the ease with which

subjects assumed roles to their experiences of power and powerlessness

relationships as children and parents. Individual-level researchers also

focus on childhood experiences, tracing the authoritarian personality to

particularly harsh, punishing parents (Adomo, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levin-

son,

Sanford,

1950)

and drawing specific connections between upbring-

ing and the characteristics of achieving, driven executives (Kaplan, 1991)

or neurotic leaders (Kets de Vries Miller, 1987). Both approaches thus

emphasize childhood experiences as influential in authority dynamics,

although as yet neither has yielded a comprehensive framework that

describes the connections between people's early and later authority re-

latio ns . Hirschhorn (1990: 541) hinted at one, when he noted tha t inter-

nalized models of authority figures . . . derived from childhood influence

authority relations at work (see Kahn, 1990b).

These implications help frame our approach to the authorizing and

de-authorizing processes that shape authority relations at work in both

traditional and collaborative organizational arrangements. Specifically,

we focus on how individuals authorize or de-authorize themselves and

others partly on the basis of enduring, often unacknowledged stances

toward authority itself—stances that are enacted in similar ways across

hierarchical and collaborative work arrangements and across various

roles and positions. These stances are — as Hirschhorn

(1990)

suggested—

infernaiized mo els developed in childhood that individuals typically


8/35

24 Academy

of anagement Review anuary

on recent theory and research in child developm ent, w e offer a framework

by which to understand such processes.

INTERN L MO DELS OF UTHORITY

Clinical psychological research (Bowlby,

1980;

Freud, 1936) suggests

that people tend to recreate the unresolved dynamics of past relation-

ships (with parents, siblings, and other important figures) and act as if

those dynamics are part of present relationships (e.g., with spouses,

bosses , an d co-workers). The psychoana lytic concept here is transference

(Freud, 1936): Impulses that have their source in early object re lation s a re

not created by the objective situation but merely revived by the compul-

sion to repeat early relationships. The colloquial expression here is that

of the persona l baggage that people carry with them to work and unload

on others. Clinical and developmental psychologists (Bowlby, 1980),

group dynamics theorists (Bennis & Shepard, 1956), and organ izational

psychologists (Argyris

Schon, 1978; Hirschhorn, 1990; Kets de Vries &

Miller, 1985) have in various ways suggested a more technical version of

this dynamic: Individuals have internal models of authority that shape

how they experience and act in social systems. This notion builds on the

concept of theories-in-use (Argyris

Schon, 1978), but it adds both a so-

phisticated theoretical base (attachment theory) and a particular content

focus (authority relations).

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980) focuses on how infants' early

attachments to primary caregivers determine enduring ways in which

they continue to attach themselves to significant others. On the bas is of

experiences with primary caregivers, infants develop internal working

models of the world and particularly their relations to attachm ent figures.

More specifically, infants who develop secure models of attachment re-

flect caregiving environments that are stable, consistent, and nurturing,

whereas infants who develop insecure models of attachment are accu-

rately reflecting caregiving environments in which nurturing is abse nt or

inconsistent. Internal models of attachment thus enable infants to carry

accurate pictures of their environments to guide their responses to pri-

mary care givers (Bowlby, 1980; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Those

models guide behaviors and the appraisal of experience (Bowlby, 1973,

1980)

and continue into adulthood (Weiss,

1982).

Recent research sugg ests

that people's models of attachments influence ongoing relationships

other than those with paren ts an d other primary caregive rs (Hazan &

Shaver, 1987; Main et al., 1985). This is not to say that inte rna l models

developed in childhood continue unabated or unchanged into adulthood,

but that

aspects

of those models continue to shape behavioral tendencies

and adult relationships.

Although these internal models of attachment are primarily about


9/35

1994 Kah n an d

iam

25

first authority figures in people 's lives (Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1973),

and they set the template for what people expect in authority relations.

Consider, for example, a person who had powerfully negative experi-

ences with untrustworthy primary caregivers. Initially, the person will

maintain the belief that those in authority cannot be trusted. The person

may act as a subordinate in ways that are unauthentic and defensive,

and he or she may perceive others as m anipulative and deceitful, so that

superiors will be forced to appear punitive and demanding as they seek

information and resources from the withholding subordinate. Similarly,

the person may act as a superior in ways that lead subordinates to with-

hold and defend themselves, allowing the person to confirm the belief

that others cannot be trusted. The person thus acts from a model of au-

thority-as-untrustworthy to create untrustworthy authority relations. Like

self-fulfilling prophecies, peo ple's internal m odels of authority are con-

firmed as they construct authority relations in ways that shore up those

models (Kets de Vries

Miller, 1985). Such cycles remain unbroken until

individuals enter meaningful relations of authority in which they are

given feedback and new experiences that weaken the hold of their inter-

nal models (described further in the following section).

Three points need to be emphasized here about such internal models,

as conceptualized in attachm ent theory. First, people may be more or less

aware of their internal models of authority, that is, of the nature of their

beliefs an d how deeply emb edded they

are.

Although people are typically

un aw are of their inte rna l working models (Bowlby, 1980; Main et a l.,

1985; Sroufe Fleeson, 1986), these models may become acc ess ible to

individuals who understand the underlying patterns of their behavior in

relation w ith others . Individuals will therefore differ in terms of how con-

sciously aw are they are of their internal m odels. A second and related

point is that internal models tend to endure and shape people's relations

with others, unless peop le become aw are of them a nd chang e them in the

context of meaningful relations with significant others and therapists

(Argyris Schon, 1978; Egeland, Jacobvitz, Sroufe, 1988). As models

become increasingly am enable to change , they exert less force on behav-

ior and allow for situational influences (Hazan Shaver, 1987). Third, the

models are not of authority figures per se; they are of authority relations

(Kahn, 1990b)—particularly of hierarchical relations, given that internal

models develop w ithin the context of parent-child re lations. In ternal mod-

els of authority thus dictate how individuals will act in relation to one

another, in given or negotiated authority relations, irrespective of the

particu lar positions they occupy. The notion is that peop le strike various

poses or stances tow ard authority, rega rdles s of who occupies authorized

roles.

Drawing on work from interpersonal (Argyle, 1967; G abarro Kotter,

1980;

Hirschhorn,

1990;

Kets de Vries

Miller, 1985), group (Bennis

Shep-


10/35

26 Academy of Managem ent Review anuary

authority: dep end en t, counferdependenf , an d

interdependent

( see Tab le

1). Each s tance is character ized by a set of assumptions about authority

an d the pr inc iples on which re la t ions of author ity opera te . These as sum p-

t ions ma y be more or less expl ic i t, dep end ing on how aw are individu als

are of their exis tence and operation. Internal models also are character-

ized by p eop le s sense of self in relation to authority beliefs about how

their pe rso na l selves are affected by relat ion s of authority in h ierarch ical

systems. Like the assumptions about authority, these beliefs may be more

or less conscious. We also identify the patterns of attachment (Bowlby,

1973, 1980) to wh ich the mo dels correspond. Attachm ent th eoris ts ha ve

empir ica l ly documented three types of a t tachments be tween infants and

caregivers (Ainsworth, 1973). These types correspond to the three internal

m od els of auth ority in the next section s an d ar e useful referen ce p oin ts for

understanding the formation of the operating strategies tha t ad ul ts use

(knowingly or not knowingly) to enact their internal models in relat ions

involving authority. Operating s trategies are par t of internal models , yet

they are observe d throug h peo ple s beh avio rs at work an d in work rela-

t ionships . The s trategies guide people in enacting and reinforcing their

internal models of authority, leading to par t icular behavioral outcomes.

The following discu ssion h igh lights how p eop le s interna l mo dels of

author i ty shape the re la t ion between the ir personal se lves and the hier -

archical roles they occupy. The centrality of this theme reflects two con-

vergin g no tions. First , as n oted ab ove , authorizing is def ined in terms of

giv ing th e right to brin g the pe rso na l self (one s own or ano ther s) into th e

work role . Second, an ongoing s truggle for organization members is how

much they br ing relevant dimensions of their personal, authentic selves

into tas k p erfo rm an ce s (Gould, 1993; Hirsc hho rn, 1985; Ka hn, 1990a). In-

ternal models of authority are thus patterns of how individuals resolve

such struggles in authorizing themselves and others to work. The three

internal models of authority described in the following sections each offer

different resolutions: to deny the need for bringing the self into the hier-

arch ical role (suppress the self) , to deny th e need for the hiera rchic al role

itself (supp ress the role) , an d to m an ag e the ongoing relat ion b etw een self

and role (suppress neither) .

W hat follows a re rela tively p ure forms of pe op le s inte rna l m od els of

authority descr ibed in terms that clear ly dis t inguish them from one an-

other . Peop le s actions , beliefs , an d feelings in relat ion s involving au-

thori ty may conta in var ious shad ing s of the mod els an d resem ble asp ects

of more than one of the models . Indeed, as people mature into adulthood

and par t icipate in important relat ionships, they typically are able to re-

vise their internal models and allow for behaviors usually associated

with other mo dels (Hazan Sha ver, 1987). Peop le thu s ma tu re so tha t they

have the capacity to take on aspects of multiple internal models and to


11/35

994

Kahn

nd

iam

TABLE

Three Internal Models of Authority

Dependent Counterdependent Interdependent

Stance toward

Emphasizes hieiaichical

nature oi

authority

Underlying

assumptions

Sense oi seli

in relation

to authority

Corresponding

pattem oi

attachment

Operating

strategies

roles

of

superior

and

subordinate, whose

relationships

are

governed

by the

ru les of

iormal organizations.

Authority itself

is of

paramount importance.

Relationships structured

according to rules of

hierarchy.

Personal dimensions

of

people

are

suspect

to

the extent they

undermine authority

relations.

On e s self is found—

defined, constructed,

maintained— in

relationships

of

authority.

Hierarchical position gives

sense

of self;

without

such relationships, one s

self

is

lost.

Anxious resistant:

Uncertain

if

others will

be available,

responsive, helpful.

Tends

to

cling

to

authority relations,

anxious about exploring

world.

Emphasize hierarchy,

status differences.

Encourage dependency,

along hierarchical

structures {in seli,

others).

Idealize authority

and its

representatives

in

seli,

others).

De-emphasize personal

thoughts

and

ieelings.

Undermines

or

d ismisses

hierarchical roles

of

superior

and

subordinate.

Authority itself

is oi

minimal importance.

Authority

is

suspect

to the

extent it undermines

personal expression.

Nonrole data

are

trustworthy.

On e s self is found outside

hierarchy

and

relationships

of

authority.

In

such

relationsh ips, one s self

becomes lost: engulfed

or abandoned, denied

or

suppressed,

de-

constructed.

Anxious avoidant:

No confidence

in

others

helping, expects

rejection. Seeks

to be

emotionally

self-

sufficient, withdraws

from authority relations.

Dismiss status diiferences,

de-emphasize hierarchy.

Rebel against authority

(own, others ) with

confrontation

or

withdrawal .

Deny dependen cy

in self,

others).

Seek

to

pull self

and

others

out oi

role

relationships.

Emphasizes inter-

dependencies among

people occupying

various hierarchical

roles,

acknowledging

both person

and

role

dimensions.

Authority

is a

collaborative proc ess.

Different hierarchical

positions offer diiierent,

equally valid,

and

complementary

perspectives.

Relationships structured

in

terms

of

role

and

personal dimensions.

Authority

and

personal

dimensions

are

linked;

one without

the

other

is

suspect.

One s seli

is

found

in its

simultaneous

dependence

on and

independence from

hierarchical

relationships

of

authority.

Secure:

Confident

in

authority

relations,

in

which

others

are

avai lable ,

responsive, and helpful.

Bold in exploring world:

sense oi s imultaneous

connections

and

independence.

Emphasize person-in-role

within hierarchical

relationships.

Contribute personal

thoughts, feelings

within authority

interactions.

Acknowledge both

personal

and

role

dimension of self,

others).

Emphasize simultaneous

dependence

and

independence.


12/35

28 Academy of Ma nagement Review January

ally characterized

by one of the

three general models described

in the

following sections.

In our

analysis,

we

focus

on

these dispositional

ele-

ments as they shape authority relations at work.

Dependent Model o uthority

We define

the

dependent model

of

authority

in

terms

of

peop le's

de-

pendency on the rules and roles of formal hierarchy. People whose inter-

nal m odels are of dependency tend to establish relationships in which the

dependency

of the

hierarchical subordinate

on the

superior

is

high-

lighted, sought,

and

valued.

In

Schein's (1979) terms, people seek

con-

formity with established patterns of thought and behavior; in Turner's

(1976) term s, they adopt an institutional focus for their self. As subordi-

nates,

these people seek dependency

on

those

in

formal authority,

de-

authorizing themselves

to

take responsibility

for

managing themselves.

As superiors, these people seek the dependency of others over whom they

have authority, de-authorizing others to assum e responsibility for man-

aging themselves. They seek

to

structure relationsh ips

in

terms

of

formal-

ized relations between the roles that people occupy rather than between

the people themselves. As both superiors and subordinates, people with

dependent models

of

authority supp ress their personal selves within such

role-based interactions. We suggest that this suppression

is

based partly

on their assumption that such personal dimensions inevitably undermine

the strict re lations of authority on which they depend to guide their work

and work relationships. Given that assumption, they seek

to

split

the

person away from

the

role

and

leave personal dimensions outside role

performances.

We also suggest that such dependency is based partly on people's

sense that they will find their identities only within the context of hierar-

chical relationships; that

is,

that their person al se lves will find definition

only through the roles they occupy. Such self-definition is external. Em-

ploying this internal model, people depend on externally determined

rules

and

roles

to

guide their behaviors, beliefs,

and

feelings

in

relation

to others.

It is

within those role relations that people find them selves ,

and it is outside those relations that people feel lost. The dep endence is

on the scripts a ttached to hierarchical roles that offer characters to por-

tray (i.e., stereotypical characters

of

boss

and

employee ), lines

to say,

and plays

to

enact

cf.

Fiske

Taylor, 1984). This m odel echoes

the anx-

ious resistant pattern of attachment (Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1980), in

which infants who are uncertain about the availability of parents or pri-

mary caregivers tend

to

cling to those figures. These infants have anxiety

about exploring their world

and

wish

to

remain connected

to

authority

figures. Unless this type of internal model is replaced with another one,

the adults into which these children grow will maintain the desire to

remain connected both

to

authority figures

and to

au thority

itself, and


13/35

1994 ifah n a n d Jfram 29

We posit that people with dependent models of authority have oper-

ating strategies to maintain their dependency and that of others. Their

strategies involve emphasizing the status differences between them-

selves and o thers with whom they are hierarchically affiliated and acting

in ways to reinforce such differences: Superiors act in ways that disem-

power or de-skill subordinates so they will be needed by those subordi-

nates,

and subordinates act in ways that disempower or de-skill them-

selves so that they consistently feel the need for their superiors. In doing

so, both superiors and subordinates with dependent models idealize au-

thority and those in whom it is formally vested by organizations, and they

disparage the personal thoughts and feelings that people bring to rela-

tions of authority. In such a case, the ongoing deference to authority—

one's own and that of others—is maintained at the expense of people

using their own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs to help guide their work.

What is left is simply the ongoing deference to authority. Behaviorally,

this means that people will suppress—in themselves and others—real

thoughts and feelings, spontaneously gen erated ide as, an d the question-

ing of decisions based on personal values and ethical principles.

Counterd epend ent Model of uthority

We define the counterdependent model of authority in terms of peo-

ple's resistance to the rules and roles of formal hierarchy. People whose

internal models are of counterdependency tend to establish relationships

in which authority itself is minimized, undermined, and de-valued (cf.

Schein, 1979, on rebellion). In Turner's (1976) term s, such people ar e im-

pu lsives, who crea te their selves via spon taneous and often deviant

acts.

As subordinates, these people dism iss or undermine hierarchically

determined role interactions; as superiors, these people similarly seek to

step outside the boundaries of role-determined relations. In each case,

hierarchical relations are de-authorized; that is, people are not given the

right to do work in the context of hierarchical relations. This de-

authorization assum es various forms, ranging from the outright refusal to

cooperate in authority relationships (Schein, 1979) to the more subtle but

equa lly underm ining substitution of personal connections for role-related

interactions with others (Hirschhorn, 1985, 1990), that is, undermining the

authority relations while maintaining or even emphasizing personal con-

nections. As both superiors and subordinates, people with counterdepen-

dent models of authority thus seek to suppress authority.

Such counterdependency is based partly on people's sense that they

will find their identities only outside the context of hierarchical relation-

ships and that they will be lost if fused with the roles they occupy (i.e.,

personal identity becomes de-constructed rather than constructed in role-

based relations). In such a case , the desired m ean s of self-definition is to

resist external d em ands and to substitute countervailing personal behav-


14/35

30 cademy ol Management Review January

echoes the anxious avoidant pattem of attachment (Ainsworth, 1973;

Bowlby, 1980), in which infants who do not hav e confidence in parents or

primary caregivers, and expecting rejection from them, tend to distance

themselves from those figures. These infants have become emotionally

self-sufficient and su ppress their needs for help from authority figures.

Unless this type of internal m odel is replaced with ano ther, the adu lts into

which these children grow will maintain the desire to disconnect from

authority figures and from authority itself

People with counterdependent models of authority have operating

stra tegie s to maintain their dismissal of hierarchical role relations. Their

strategies involve de-emphasizing sta tus differences. This constitutes re-

bellion against authority (one's own and others') that may occur in the

form of direct confrontation of authority or passiv e w ithdrawal from rela-

tionships involving the use of authority. Both types of behaviors are at-

tempts to deny the dependency inherent in hierarchical relations. Such

behaviors a lso are , in Bion's

1961)

terms, responses to ang er at authority:

Active rebellion is the fight response, and passiv e withdraw al is the

flight response. Regarding the first response, organization mem bers

struggle to topple the authority structure (and their places within it); re-

garding the latter response, they deny the existence of authority. In such

cases,

peop le try to pull themselves and others out of the roles dictated by

hierarchy, explicitly or implicitly disparaging the structure and bound-

aries provided by authority relations and those who maintain them. The

ongoing undermining of authority—one's own and that of others—is

maintained at the expense of people's work connections and the organi-

zational systems (of communication, accountability, responsibility, and

coordination) that support their tasks.

Interd epen dent Model of uthority

Finally, we define the interdependent model of authority in terms of

people's emphasis on both personal and role dimensions in working with

others who occupy different hierarch ical positions. We suggest tha t peo-

ple whose internal models are of interdependency tend to establish rela-

tionships in which there are aspects of both dependence on hierarchical

authority (one's own and others') and independence from that authority.

They assume that people occupy hierarchical roles and make valuable

contributions; as unique individuals, they can make such contributions

from the context of their roles. The interdependency is thus first between

person and

role:

Neither the person nor the role is suppressed in ways tha t

undermine how living, thinking, feeling people perform roles according

to the guiding structures and boundaries of hierarchical systems

(Hirschhom, 1990). This interna l model assu m es that peop le occupy given

roles an d a re neither subsum ed by nor subsum e those roles (Kahn, 1992).


15/35

1994 Ka hn an d Jfram 31

m an ce of sh ar ed ta sk s (Gould, 1993; Hirschh orn, 1988, 1990). Pe op le w ith

this internal model trust in the value of both role and person, and they

believe in the usefulness of both authority and self-expression. Such peo-

ple perceive hierarchical systems as offering different and complemen-

tary vantage points for perceiving, learning, and acting. It follows that

these people would seek to collaborate with others and value what they

offer from their own roles as subordinates and superiors. We believe the

two types of interdependencies are l inked: As people seek to br ing their

individual voices into the performance of their hierarchical roles, they

seek out the voices of others who are hierarchically linked to them.

Such interdep ende ncy is ba se d partly on peop le 's sense that they will

find their identities by being both inside and outside the context of hier-

arch ical rela tionsh ips. The prem ise is that people define them selve s (i .e . ,

construct their identities) partly in connection to established systems of

roles,

bou nda ries, a nd authority , and partly in sep arati on (even rebellion)

from those systems. Self-definition is achieved by both accepting and

resisting connections to authority (one's own and others') , just as people

define themselves partly in relation to and separate from others in close

rel at io ns (Smith Berg, 1987). The im ag e he re is of ac tor s wh o dr aw on

both given stag e directions an d their internal se ns e of the chara cters they

portray to enact their roles. This model echoes the secure pattern of at-

ta ch m en t (Ainsw orth, 1973; Bow lby, 1980), in w hic h infant s feel con fiden t

that parents or pr imary caregivers are consistently available and respon-

sive to their needs while they maintain appropriate boundaries. These

infants ar e ab le to feel both self-sufficient an d trusting in primary c are-

givers. The adults into which these children grow maintain the abil i ty to

simultaneously connect with and remain separate from authority f igures

and from authority itself

People with interdepen dent mo dels of authority act in wa ys, bas ed on

their operat ing strate gies , to em pha size the person-in-role. They do so by

using their own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs to help guide their task

performances and work interactions without discounting their roles or

those of others linked to them hierarchically (Kahn, 1990a). People's

voices and energies are employed in the context of roles and the service

of the tasks. In such cases, collaborations within and across levels of

responsibil i ty and inf luence are sought. This means that people with

in terdepend ent models of au thori ty emphasize their s imu ltaneous depen -

dence on and in depe nden ce from others . Such people acknowledge s ta tus

differences without making them so prominent that personal dimensions

(in self and others) are lost. Superiors and subordinates with interdepen-

dent models use the structure and boundaries provided by authority re-

lation s without let t ing them selve s and their relations be dictated by those

sys tems .


16/35

32 Academy of Manag ement Review anuary

tion members with interdependent models of authority are able to em-

phasize both personal and role dimensions without sacrificing the integ-

rity of either dimension in relations involving the use of authority. Orga-

nization members with either of the other two internal models will split

personal and role dimensions, emphasizing one at the cost of the other,

and they will not fully engage themselves in tasks and relationships at

work. We are making a clear normative statement here: People with in-

terdependent models of authority are better able to authorize relevant

persona l dim ensions of themselves and others to work in roles of superior

and subordinate than people with either of the two other internal models

of authority we identify. Additionally, people with interdependent models

are better suited to the demands of the high involvement (Lawler, 1988)

and the postindustrial organization (Hirschhorn, 1988, 1990), which de-

pend on the joint negotiation of duty and au thority and the collaborations

that ensue.

LINKING INTERNAL MODELS OF AUTHORITY TO

BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES

Internal models shape how individuals authorize and de-authorize

themselves and o thers as they take up organization roles, that is, to do the

work expected, to wield and be subject to influence, and to collaborate

with others within and outside hierarchical relationships. We focus here

on three specific areas in which such authorizing and de-authorizing oc-

curs:

task performance hierarchical dyads and teamwork. (Although

considera tion of other outcomes is beyond the scope of this pape r, they too

should be explored.) The first area focuses on individuals authorizing and

de-authorizing themselves to work; the second area focuses on authoriz-

ing and de-authorizing in both traditional superior-subordinate and men-

toring relationships; and the third area focuses on authorizing and de-

authorizing in traditiona l and self-managing work groups. For each a rea ,

we offer propositions about how people s tendencies to act on the bas is

of

aspects of internal models of authority shape their behaviors.

Task performance

How hard organization members work on as-

signed task s is trad itionally understood in terms of work m otivation: how

much people are compelled to perform capably by external (e.g., finan-

cial incentives) and internal (e.g., growth opportunities) rewards for do-

ing so. Organizations traditionally seek to strengthen their employees

motivations by enhancing reward systems (Steers

Porter, 1979) and job

characteristics (Hackman Oldham , 1980) in order to encourage employ-

ees to work m ore productively. U nderlying the work m otivation approach

is a lingering assu mption of Taylor s (1911) scientific managem ent: Em-

ployers can find the correct motivaters that a ctivate th e em ployee s en-

ergies to perform standard, externally-directed labors—much as one


17/35

1994 Kahn an d iam 33

does the need for employees to simply release energ ies an d effort in the

service of directed tasks. Increasingly, employees need to create new

methods and ideas, to direct themselves, to collaborate across roles and

hierarchical levels, and to think more critically and autonomously

(Handy,

1989;

Hirschhorn,

1990;

Lawler,

1988).

o

do

so ,

organization mem-

bers m ust be more psychologically present at work. They must feel and be

attentive and connected to their tasks and others, have various parts of

them selves acce ssible ra ther than split off and inaccessible to their work,

and focus on bringing those parts to the primary task. Most important,

they must be recognized and rewarded for being present in such ways.

The new language is of presence, which subsumes the vocabulary of

work motivation.

There are various influences on the extent to which organization

members are psychologically present at any moment in time. Kahn (1992)

described both systemic (or situational) and individual influences, the

latter including internal models that individuals have of themselves in

their roles (i.e., models of themselves as psychologically present or ab-

sent). He noted tha t ind ividuals vary in terms of how much they authorize

themselves to bring their personal selves into their task performances,

and he sugg ested that such self-authorizations are based partly on in-

ternal models on which people consciously or unconsciously depend to

guide their work relations. We extend that argument here, first noting

that there are a ctually two authorizing dynam ics involved: authorizing of

the role (i.e., supporting role-dictated behaviors) and authorizing of the

person (i.e., supporting the bringing to bear of personal dimensions—

thoughts, feelings, creative impulses, values, and beliefs—to tasks). We

suggest that each of the three internal models of authority has particular

implications for the extent to which organization members authorize the

presence of role and personal dimensions during task performances, for

themselves and others.

More specifically, we suggest that people with dependent models

will tend to authorize them selves and others to act from their roles during

task performances, and they will de-authorize themselves and others to

draw on personal dimensions in guiding those performances. These peo-

ple will accept the parameters of given roles—their own and others'—

and will seek direction from existing norms of thought and action rather

than create new methods and ideas, direct themselves, and think criti-

cally and autonomously. People with counterdependent models, con-

versely, will tend to de-authorize work roles— their own an d others'— by

directing behaviors away from the purposes of given roles. Such people

may do so through clear rebellion (e.g., simply doing or encouraging

things contrary to role purposes) or through more subtle underminings

(e.g., playing upon personal relationships to reshape expected role be-

haviors). These people are more likely to create new methods and ideas,


18/35

34 Academy of Managem ent Review

anuary

vice of de-authorizing given roles. Finally, we suggest that people with

interdependent models will tend to authorize both role and personal di-

mensions of themselves an d others. These people are most likely to crea te

new methods and ideas, to direct themselves, and to think critically and

autonomously in the service of meeting (and exceeding) expectations

about role-dictated behaviors. These people will resist impulses—their

own and others — to emphasize either role or person al dic tates, such tha t

one inappropriately eclipses the other.

Proposition

1: eople

with dependent internal models

of

authority will authorize role-dictated behaviors and de-

authorize personal dimensions of themselves and others

during task performances.

Proposition 2: Peop le with counterdependent internal

models of authority will de-authorize role-dictated be-

haviors and may authorize personal dimensions) of

themselves and others during task performances.

roposition 3 : eople with interdependent internal mod-

els of author ity will authorize both role-dictated behav-

iors and personal dimensions to coexist during task per-

formances, so neither one is emphasized at the expense

of the other.

These three propositions form the basis for the propositions that fol-

low.

Hierarchical dyads

The majority of hierarchical dyads genera lly take

one of two forms in organizations: those that are formally prescribed by

the organization to support task performance (e.g., boss-subordinate rela-

tionships), or those that evolve na turally to support the junior m ember s

learning and development (e.g., mentor relationship). Though the latter

may be formally assigned through a human resource initiative, more

often such relationships occur through the voluntary involvement of both

parties. Although some formally prescribed boss-subordinate relation-

ships also may evolve into a mentor relationship, they are discussed

separately here.

In formal hierarchical relationsh ips, the in ternal m odels of authority

that one ind ividual brings to the dyad m ay converge or diverge from that

of the other, with differing implications. We suggest that when both boss

and subordinate have dependent models of authority, for example, they

each invest energy into suppressing personal dimensions of themselves

that are relevant to their work together. This may include suppressing

creative ideas, ethical questions, or feelings whose absence m ay impede

communication or undermine work effectiveness. If both boss and subor-


19/35

1994 Yiahn nd Kiam

35

the com pletion of ass ign ed tasks . When both members of the dya d ha ve

in te rdependent mode ls of authority, they are a ble to construct a relation-

sh ip tha t gu ards aga ins t these dan ger s . In these re la t ionships , each per -

son is a ble to e n g a g e the relevant person al dim ensions of himself or

herself

and the

other within

the

context

of

their respective roles.

Proposition 4: When both dyad m embeis hold either de-

pe nd en t or counferdependenf internal models of author-

ity,

the relationship will

undermine

task

performance

through the joint suppression of person a] d imensions of

selves or denial of responsibiiity and expertise.

Even though hierarchical d yad s will be limited in their effectiveness

when e i ther dependent or counterdependent models are imported by both

members , the re

is a

degree

of fit

because bo th pa r t ies ' a s sump t ions ,

ex-

pe c t a t i ons ,

and

stra teg ies

are

comp lementa ry . When dyad me mb ers

br ing

different

models of authority to the relation ship ( i .e . , a poor fit), we

can anticipate quite different results (Gabarro Kotter, 1980). For e xa m -

ple,

if an organizat ion member wishes to und ermine author ity and his or

her super ior wishes to em phasize author ity , the two will construct a re-

la t ionship in which ea ch is at odds w ith the other; a play will commence

whose plot is insubordinat ion and wh ose reso lution w ill involve the un-

dermining of partic ipan ts , the relationsh ip, and th e work itself. Similarly,

if a subord ina te wishes to cling to a super ior who eschew s his or her own

authority

and

those

who

d e m a n d

it the

effectiveness

of

each

is

a g a i n

und ermin ed a long with their re la t ionship and their work. In each of these

cases (and in the other poss ible comb inat ions of the three internal m odels

previously descr ibed) the operat ing pr inciple is the s a m e : The lack of fit

betw een the super ior ' s internal model and that of the subordinate create s

actual re la t ionships that undermine ra ther than suppor t their work.

Proposition 5: Dyad mem bers will experience inteipei-

sonal conflict dissatisfaction

nd

difficulties with task

performance

when membeis biing

different internai

models

of

authority

to the

ielationship.

The internal models that organization members hold also inf luence

the extent to which they seek out and mainta in

mentoring relationships

which hold the promise of sub stant ia l task and perso nal l earn ing (Hall

Kram, 1981; Kram , 1988; Kram B raga r, 1992; M cCall et al ., 1988; Sch ein,

1978). In the early career ye ars , novices face the chal lenges of establ ish-

ing a work identity and niche, dev elopin g self-confidence, acq uir in g rel-

evant com petenc ies and knowledge , and prepar ing for a dva nc e m e n t and

grow th (Hall, 1976; Schein , 1978). De pen den t ind ivid ua ls will readily seek

mentors ' advice and counsel , w here as counterdepend ent ind ividuals are

more likely to a t temp t to master th ese sam e chal le nge s a lon e. It may a l so

be that those with dependent s tances are resis tant to enter ing the s e pa -


20/35

36 Academy of Mana gement Review January

pendent individuals may overcome resistance to seeking help, they may

be relatively unwilling to risk the self-disclosure that fosters the cultiva-

tion of deep mentoring alliances.

Similarly, those in the middle and late career years will face the

predictable tasks of reassessment and redirection, the threats of obsoles-

cence and aging, and the opportunities to become generative through

assu ming the m entor role (Kram, 1988; Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson,

McKee, 1979; Schein, 1978). Again, it will be difficult, we suspect, for

those with a counterdependent stance to develop deepened relationships

with fledgling (and dependent) proteges . Similarly, it will be difficult for

these same individuals to ask for help in addressing the critical chal-

lenges of midlife and increasing organizational turbulence.

Proposition

;

/ndividuais w ith dependent models of au-

thority will more actively seek mentoring relationships

than those with counterdependent models of authority.

Proposition 7: Both dependent and counterdependent

models undermine the potential value of mentoring re-

lationships— the former thwarts movem ent through the

separation and redefinition phases and the latter

thwarts the degree of intimacy and personal learning

that can occur.

It app ear s ultimately that an interdependent stance holds the great-

est potential for deepening mentoring alliances in which mutua l benefits

of such developm ental alliances ar e maximized. In this case, both p arties

are willing to share relevant personal dimensions, to acknowledge and

work with hierarch ical/status differences created by the formal roles they

occupy, and to collaborate regarding both task accomplishment and per-

sonal learning.

eamwork

Teamwork h as become increasingly important in contem-

porary organizations, an d task forces and self-managing groups are com-

monplace (Hackman, 1987). Thus, in addition to traditional work groups,

effective teamwork (group members jointly applying knowledge and

skills to accomplish objectives that a re a ccep table to those who receive or

review task output) (Hackman, 1987 is now essen tial to interdepartme ntal

coordination, product innovation, and a variety of other critical organi-

zational tasks. We suggest that individuals' internal models of authority

will shape their participation—type and amount of effort, roles, strate-

gies for participating—across various types of groups.

For example, in the traditional work group, we can expect that the

dependent individuals w ill welcome direction from a formal group leader

(e.g., the boss) and also will have the tendency to de-authorize them-

selves and their peers. As a consequence, members' creative contribu-


21/35

1994 Kah n an d Kiam 37

and task forces, where formal authority is not prescr ibed, and, instead,

group members must coUaborat ively work toward accomplishing tasks

while authority is shared among members. In order for such individuals

to effectively contribute in this context and also facilitate other members

contr ibutions, they will ha ve to contend w ith con sidera ble discomfort an d

move beyond the dependent s tance.

Proposition 8; Group mem bers with dependent models

of authority will simultaneously desire direction and

support from the boss and other formal authority), and

they will discount their own authority and that of their

peers.

In contras t to dep end ent individuals , the group mem ber who holds a

cou nterd epe nd ent mo del of authority will welcom e the opportunity to par-

t ic ipate in a se l f -managing group where mem bers are expected to operate

autonomously. However , i t is also l ikely that while embracing their own

skills,

voice, and authority, such members will resist other members

attem pts to provide le ad ersh ip for the group. Also, if most m em bers hold

this s tance, there is a good l ikelihood that the group will distance i tself

from its formal le ad ers an d sever l ine s of support an d com mu nication that

are important to its task effectiveness.

Proposition 9: Group mem bers with counterdependent

models of authority w ill distance themselves from their

formal leaders, resist the authority of other group mem -

bers, and may. to varying extents, embrace their own

voices and creative energies.

This analys is sugges ts that group members with e i ther internaJ

model of author i ty—dependence or counterdependence—are l ikely to

un derm ine ( to som e degree) the poten tial of tradit ion al work grou ps, task

forces, and self-managing work groups. The implication here is that

members who hold an interdependent model of authority will be most

effective in maximizing effective task performance in groups. Such indi-

viduals seek col laborat ive re la t ions between hierarchical levels : They

are able to draw upon formal systems of authority, communication, and

control for support , gu ida nc e, s tructure, an d res ource s. At the sa m e time,

they a lso are able to assume ownership for task processes and outputs ,

and they will encourage their peers to do the same. This sense of owner-

sh ip see m s par t icu la r ly impo r tan t to the suc cess of se l f -m ana ging

groups, whose members must take personal responsibil i ty for work out-

comes, monitor their own performances, take corrective actions when

necessary, actively seek guidance from their organizations when neces-

sary, and help other people in other areas to improve their performances

(Hackman, 1986). Self-man aging grou ps need m em bers wh o ar e w ill ing

and able to take ownership of their own processes, and in doing so au-


22/35

38 Academy of Mana gement Review January-

more and more on self-managing teams for innovation, quality, and pro-

ductivity, they will need mem bers who bring an interdependent stance to

teamwork.

Proposition 10:

roup

mem bers who hold an interdepen

dent model of authority are most capable of utilizing

resources within and outside the group toward achiev

ing teamwork and organizational objectives.

This set of propositions offers a way to begin mapping the influence

that organization members' internal models of authority have on their

work and work relationships.

TRIGGERING ND CH NG ING INTERN L MODELS O F UTHORITY

In explicating the natu re and influence of interna l models of author-

ity, we have simplified the three m odels, treating them a s though they a re

constant and enduring (i.e., always operating and impervious to modifi-

cation from birth). Neither point is accura te; the reality is more subtle a nd

complex. Next, we offer propositions about how internal models of au-

thority might be triggered and how they might change at work.

Triggering Internal M odels of uthority

It is likely that there are real individual differences in terms of how

dominant an internal model of authority is over a particular person's

behav ior. Some individuals, for examp le, may be influenced a grea t d ea l

by their internal models, across various situations, whereas others may

be influenced to lesser exten ts, in particular and d iscrete situations. That

is, some people will automatically respond to many situations with the

strategies dictated by their internal models, whereas other people will

automatically respond to just a few situations and in the other situations

they will have a wider range of choices about how to behave. We under-

stand these differences in terms of how often an individual's internal

model is triggered. People will vary along this dimension, from those

whose models are triggered so often that they seem to react to all situa-

tions with the autom atic application of their models, to those w hose mod-

els are triggered so infrequently that it seems a behavioral aberration

when they are. We use the concept of triggering as a way of exploring

more deeply why internal models are activated , in terms of the functions

they serve for individuals.

Our premise is that it is when individuals experience enough anxiety

to make them feel insecure in their immediate situations that their inter-

nal model of authority is triggered. This idea reflects two principles from

research and theory on attachment. First, infants (Bowlby, 1973), youths


23/35

1994

Kah n an d Jfram 39

they experience anxiety. Those situations invariably occur when people

feel that their se nse of security is threatened, that is, when the world does

not seem predictable and familiar and the person's way of navigating

through emotions and situations is threatened. Second, internal models

function to provide security. When individuals feel threatened, they enact

behaviors whose aim is to re-create the sense of security (Ainsworth,

1973);

that is, they cling to, withdraw from, or reestablish connection and

then move away from attachment figures so as to create a relationship

that is familiar and comfortable. This notion leads to the following prop-

osition:

Proposition ii: Organization membeis operate from

tiieir internal models of aufiiority w hen they experience

work situations as insecure: They cling to dependent),

push away from counterdependent). or establish ties

while remaining independent of interdependent) given

roles and authority relations until they again feel se-

cure.

When do organization members experience the threat and anxiety

that triggers their internal models? There are many sources of stress in

organizational life, ranging from traditional sources such as task and

interpersonal demands (Cooper

Payne, 1978) to postindustrial sources

such as increasing competition, cost-reduction initiatives, the speed and

complexity of tasks, and the demands of collaboration (Handy,

1989;

Hir-

schhom, 1990). The ambiguous structure of high-involvement systems

(Lawler, 1988) itself creates stress, as individuals experience the absence

of the traditiona l hierarc hical structure and the re lative sense of security

it offered. Such stressors do not automatically lead to experienced threat

and anxiety nor to individuals' searches for security. Rather it is when

individuals perceive ev ents and situations as threatening to their se nse

of

security that they will feel threatened and anxious and behave accord-

ingly (Lazarus, 1966). Such perceptions are based both on how others

perceive and react to situations and on individuals' tendencies to per-

ceive their situations in particular ways.

orms Group and organizational norms exert pressures on how

members ought to respond to situa tions (Hackman, 1976). They also

shap e how system mem bers frame or interpret situations, in terms of how

familiar or threa tening the situations a re and w hat sorts of respon ses they

should call forth. When the prevailing norms dictate that certain situa-

tions (e.g., CEO succession) be treated as nonthreatening, it is less likely

that system members' internal models will be triggered. When norms

dictate that other situations (e.g., union-managem ent impasse) be treated

as threatening, it is more likely that members' internal models will be

triggered.


24/35

40 Academy of Mana gement Review January

ate

way s to respond to threat, which presumably serve to create a sense

of security in threatening situations. Appropriate responses may include

members clinging to, pushing away from, or acting within while remain-

ing partly independent of given roles and authority relations. For exam-

ple,

one organization's norms may encourage members to withdraw or

undermine their roles in expressions of resentment (counterdependent),

wh erea s another organization's norms may encourage m embers to put in

more hours on their tasks but not to expend ene rgies in thinking critically

and autonomously about those tasks (dependent). Though such norms

function (from the organization's perspective) to enab le members to expe-

rience so lidarity and comfort with one anothe r, they also may produce the

opposite effect: Individuals' own internal models of authority fit or do not

fit with the strateg ies required by the norms of their units, which presum -

ably leads to implications for members' experiences of security within

those units. This idea suggests the following proposition:

Proposition

12:

Individuals with internal models of au-

thority that fit with normative responses will have a di-

minished sense of anxiety threat and insecurity: indi-

viduals with

counternorm tive

internal models and who

are unable to adapt

their

behaviors will continue to feel

threatened and insecure.

Personal insecurity Individuals also differ in terms of how secure or

insecure they tend to feel, across various types of situations and relation-

ships.

That is, people differ in terms of how often they frame situations

an d even ts as threa tenin g and , therefore, how often they feel anxious an d

insecure (Greenspan

Lieberm an, 1988). Individuals w ho expe rience in-

security often, across situations, are likely to activate their particular

internal models of authority often in order to try and create familiar rela-

tionships by which to feel secure (Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1980). Thus,

these people will approach a great many situations by automatically

clinging to, pushing away from, or acting within while remaining inde-

pendent of given roles and authority relations. Because their models are

triggered by clues that are generated internally rather than perceived

externally, their actions may be completely inappropriate to the actual

dictates of the situation, such as when an insecure person attempts to

cling to the rules of hierarchical relations in an explicitly collaborative

context (e.g., self-managing team). This notion leads to the following

proposition:

Proposition 13: Insecure individuals may project rather

than perceive actual threats to their personal security

and thus activate behaviors that are unproductive for


25/35

994 ahn and iam 4

Changing Internal Models of Authority

We have suggested that when internal models of authority are trig-

gered, individuals act automatically. The point of changing these mod-

els, then, is to offer individuals a more conscious choice about how they

wish to behave in particular situations (i.e., to expand the range of be-

haviors they may app ly to different situations). We assum e that e ach of

the three internal models is adaptive in certain situations and maladap-

tive in others. For exam ple, for newcom ers to organizations, it is adap tive

to initially adopt a dependent stance; for members who are placed in

situations that call for them to be w histle-blowers on unethical behav iors

(and will penalize them if they do not), it is adaptive to adopt a counter-

dependent stance; and for members of self-managing teams, it is adap-

tive to adopt an interdependent stance. Changing internal models of au-

thority thus means learning how to escape the automatic application of

any single set of operating strategies and learning to act in ways that

meet one s needs an d situational dem ands .

Attachment theorists (Bowlby, 1980; Main et al., 1985; Sroufe

Flee-

son,

1986)

emp hasize that cha nging early models of attachment is difficult

bec ause such models operate out of immediate aw aren ess, resist chan ge,

and defend a gain st em otional pain . This idea is underscored by the work

of Chris Argyris

(1982, 1990;

Argyris

Schon, 1978), who developed theory

and interventions to enable organization members to become aware of

their theories-in-practice and the defenses they establish to maintain

those implicit theories. Both streams of research suggest the following

proposition, the components of which are elaborated in the following

paragraphs.

Proposition 14:

Changing internal mode ls is a two-stage

process

consisting of developing awareness

of one s

pat-

terns of thought and behavior and to varying extents

the psychological defenses used to maintain them) and

developing new ways of relating with others.

The less that people are aware of their internal models, the less they

are able to alter actions that derive from these models. Individuals gen-

erally develop such self-awareness in the context of relationships, in

which they receive direct or indirect feedback about how the ways they

consistently frame authority relations may be inappropriate to or ineffec-

tive in current s ituations. Such feedback informs people who are a ble to

understand that they are acting in ways that served them in the past but

are no longer always relevant. As noted previously, the internal models

that people developed to guide their reactions to primary careg ivers w ere

accurate responses to previous contexts (cf. Bowlby, 1980; Main et al.,

1985). When people leave those early environments behind, they must

cha nge internal models that guided their behavior and they must ad ap t to


26/35

42 cademy of Mana gement Review January

This process occurs when people receive feedback about the effectiveness

an d lack thereof of their behavio rs in relations of authority, in the context

of therapeutic or otherwise significant personal and professional rela-

tions (see Egeland et al., 1988; Greensp an Lieberman, 1988) and work

relationships involving significant feedback and challenging assign-

ments (McCall et al., 1988).

People chan ge interna l models not simply through feedback and self

awareness but through the different ways they experience being in au-

thority relations. For example, an individual with a counterdependent

model of authority relations may experience interdependence when join-

ing a boss, group, and organization that value s, reinforces, and promotes

(literally and symbolically) such interdependence. Through that experi-

ence, the individual may feel w hat it is like to engage both self an d role

in the exercise of formal authority and have those feelings validated

externally by other group and organization members. Slowly the individ-

ual may transform the counterdependent model into an interdependent

model as previous perceptions and behaviors become unu sab le an d cur-

rent perceptions and behaviors are reinforced in the context of supportive

relations

Authority at Work Internal Models and Their Organizational Consequences

Documents

Transcript of Authority at Work Internal Models and Their Organizational Consequences