Passive-aggressive behavior and leadership styles in organizations.

In this phenomenological study, 13 experts were asked about passive-aggressive (PA) behaviors in the workplace, specifically, whether leadership styles (autocratic, transactional, and transformational) can predict them. Participants were asked to consider the occurrence of PA behaviors in typically healthy working individuals' (rather than disordered individuals') responses to leadership styles and organizational events. Of the eight themes that emerged from the analyzed interviews, three hold particular significance to the workplace. First, a majority of the participants viewed PA behaviors in organizations as a combination of exogenous and endogenous factors. Second, most interviewees agreed that specific types of change in organizations contribute to PA behaviors. Third, most participants viewed the autocratic leadership style as a predictor of PA behaviors.

Keywords: passive-aggressive; leadership styles; workplace; organizations; predictors

**********

Organizational leadership styles have a clear impact on organizational culture, including employee behavior (Bennis, 1987; Graham, 1995), organizational "rigidity and stagnation" (Ashforth & Lee, 1990), and corporate image (Kacmar & Baron, 1999). Graham (1995) suggested that specific leadership styles motivate employees differently and encourage specific sets of responses. For example, autocratic or coercive styles yield employee responses distinct from those resulting from transactional or task-oriented styles (Argyris, 1985) as well as those resulting from transformational (Burns, 1978) or servant (Greenleaf, 1977) leadership styles. Some leadership styles or certain aspects of them add significant costs to an organization's bottom line through decreased productivity, lower employee morale, broken deadlines, and miscommunication (Stohl & Cheney, 2001). In addition to adding cost to an organization's product or service, certain employee responses diminish the workplace climate (Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968).

In this exploratory, qualitative study, we attempted to obtain and integrate expert opinions about the predictive qualities (if any) of organizational leadership styles for passive-aggressive (PA) behaviors in the workplace. Among the central research questions asked were, Is the autocratic leadership style an antecedent to this cluster of behaviors in typically productive employees? and Does the transformational style of leading predict fewer incidences of PA behaviors in the workplace?

Definitions

Following are definitions of key concepts discussed in this article: autocratic, transactional, and transformational leadership styles and PA behaviors.

Leadership styles are defined as "a pattern of emphases, indexed by the frequency or intensity of specific leadership behaviors or attitudes, which a leader places on the different leadership functions" (Casimir, 2001). The three leadership styles used in this research are autocratic, transactional, and transformational. Although categorization is restricting, it is also convenient. Instead of falling in distinct categories, leadership styles exist on a continuum. This continuum reflects the range of styles, not the frequency with which they are exhibited. Most leaders use combinations of skill types depending on the situation, context, and the styles of those within their spheres of influence. Nonetheless, each exhibits a predominant style. It is those dominating styles that we addressed in this research and used for the sake of comparison.

The autocratic style falls at one end of the leadership style continuum. It is sometimes depicted as coercive in leadership literature, with coercion running "counter to working with followers to achieve a common goal" (Northouse, 2001, p. 8). This style aims to engender obedience in those working for an organization to comply with and conform to the directives of the leader. The autocratic style does not provide ethical inspection, review, or input by subordinates and ultimately provokes negative subordinate reaction (Greenleaf, 1978).

With a task-oriented style, a transactional leader occupies the middle area of the continuum. Leaders with this style largely react to the performance of their employees and reward for compliance to their directives, a factor Northouse (2001) called "contingent reward" (p. 140). Transactional leaders do not address employees' needs, motivations, or development. In general, their focus does not include intangibles, such as goodwill, because the influence of similar intangibles may be subtle, future oriented, or not easily calculated. Organizational positions are defined according to tasks to be fulfilled, and employees are evaluated on the same. Workaholic patterns are modeled and rewarded (Graham, 1995, p. 47). Transactional leaders "focus on the exchanges that occur between leaders and their followers" (Northouse, 2001, p. 132) and use "corrective criticism, negative feedback, and negative reinforcement" (p. 140) actively and passively.

The transformational (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978) style occupies the opposite end of the leadership continuum from the autocratic style. Its characteristics overlap the participative and servant (Greenleaf, 1977) styles but can be distinguished by its motivating power. Within the continuum of styles, a transformational leader may swing from "charismatic" to "individualized consideration" (Northouse, 2001). We focused on the latter, which shows a leader approaching employees in a caring way, coaching each to develop his or her capabilities and to grow intellectually and professionally. The transformational leadership style overlaps with the servant leadership style in its attempts to share knowledge and power and to recognize the "have-nots ... as equal stakeholders in the life of the organization" (Northouse, 2001, p. 257).

The following three widely accepted constructs explain PA behaviors: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) categorical construct (previously defined), Millon and Davis's (1996) multi-dimensional traits, and McCrae and Costa's (1987) five-factor taxonomic trait model. First, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders requires that a person with PA (negativistic) personality disorder exhibit four or more of the following seven criteria beginning in "early adulthood and in a variety of contexts" (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, pp. 734-735):

1. passively resists fulfilling routine social and occupational tasks;

2. complains of being misunderstood and unappreciated by others;

3. is sullen and argumentative;

4. unreasonably criticizes and scorns authority;

5. expresses envy and resentment toward those apparently more fortunate;

6. voices exaggerated and persistent complaints of personal misfortune; and

7. alternates between hostile defiance and contrition.

Second, Millon and Davis (1996) proposed that their negativistic descriptor is broader, encompassing the "total pattern" (Millon, Davis, Millon, Escovar, & Meagher, 2000, p. 472). They specified four types of negativists: vacillating (which adds borderline components to PA behavior), discontented (which adds depressive components to PA behavior), abrasive (which adds sadistic components to PA behavior), and circuitous (which adds passive-dependent components to PA behavior).

Third, the five-factor model has assumed many forms since its inception in 1932 by McDougall and its subsequent validating factor analysis by Thurstone (Digman, 2002, p. 17). By 1994, Costa and Widiger characterized the current five factors (or dimensions) as extraversion or surgency, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability or neuroticism, and openness to experience or intellect (Digman, 2002).

For the purposes of this research, which did not focus on the personality disorder construct, the PA cluster includes the following behaviors that convey aggressive feelings through passive means: verbal indirectness, verbal passivity, indirect and physically passive behaviors, action avoidance, blame avoidance, change avoidance, resistance, "passing the buck, playing dumb, over-conforming, depersonalizing, smoothing and stretching, stalling, playing safe, justifying, scapegoating, misrepresenting, escalating commitment, resisting change, protecting turf" (Ashforth & Lee, 1990, p. 621), obstructionism, passive deceit (Wetzler & Morey, 1999), and "negativism" (Millon, 1993, p. 78).

Review of Literature

Most extant literature about organizational passive-aggressiveness details the effects it has on workplaces, company productivity, and coworkers (Kantor, 1997; Tracey, 2004). Although some researchers contend that workplace incongruity can be productive (Stohl & Cheney, 2001), others (Katz & Kahn, 1966) claim that it precipitates employee "burnout and stress" (pp. 191-192). The prevalent bottom-up view of the effect of an employee's PA behavior on the organization ignores the antecedents of the PA cluster and its effects on the workplace (Baron & Neuman, 1998; Ferris et al., 1996; Geddes & Baron, 1997, Kacmar & Baron, 1999).

Although little research focuses on organizational antecedents (e.g., leadership styles) that may foster PA behaviors in workers, a few theorists see forces operating top down from the workplace climate to employees (Baron & Neuman, 1998; Kantor, 1997) and have proposed characteristics of organizational climates that precipitate or predict PA behavior (Ashforth & Lee, 1990; Hoffmann, 1994).