Paranoia as an Antecedent and Consequence of Getting Ahead in Organizations: Time-Lagged Effects Between Paranoid Cognitions, Self-Monitoring, and Changes in Span of Control.

Niels Van Quaquebeke

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01446

Abstract

A 6-month, time-lagged online survey among 441 employees in diverse industries was conducted to investigate the role paranoia plays as an antecedent and as a consequence of advancement in organizations. The background of the study is the argument that it requires active social sense-making and behavioral adaptability to advance in organizations. The present paper thus explores the extent to which employees’ paranoid cognitions—representative of a heightened albeit suspicious sense-making and behavioral adaptability—link with their advancement in organizations (operationalized as changes in afforded span of control), both as an antecedent and an outcome. Following the strategy to illuminate the process by interaction analysis, both conditions (antecedent and outcome) are examined in interaction with employees’ self-monitoring, which is considered representative of a heightened but healthy sense-making and behavioral adaptability. Results support the expected interference interaction between paranoid cognitions and self-monitoring in that each can to some degree compensate for the other in explaining employees’ organizational advancement. Reversely, changes in span of control also affected paranoid cognitions. In particular, low self-monitors, i.e., those low in adaptive sense-making, reacted with heightened paranoid cognitions when demoted. In effect, the present study is thus the first to empirically support that paranoid cognitions can be a consequence but also a prerequisite for getting ahead in organizations. Practical advice should, however, be suspended until it is better understood whether and under what circumstances paranoia may relate not only to personally getting ahead but also to an increased effectiveness for the benefit of the organization.

Highlights

While the study of leadership effectiveness is undoubtedly important for understanding what gets organizations ahead, it is the study of leadership emergence1 that often strikes closer to home because it explains what type of people get ahead
Following Kramer’s (2001) account of organizational paranoia, the second objective of the present paper is to investigate whether changes in span of control affect people’s paranoid cognitions
Remaining unexplained variance allows for the second analysis in which paranoid cognitions are investigated as an outcome of changes in span of control

Summary

Introduction

While the study of leadership effectiveness is undoubtedly important for understanding what gets organizations ahead, it is the study of leadership emergence that often strikes closer to home because it explains what type of people get ahead. Anecdotes describe how social dynamics can dramatically change for people once they are promoted to lead others (Sennett, 2000; Kramer, 2001). Building on Kenny’s and Zaccaro’s (1983) account of leader social sensitivity and flexibility as prerequisites for leadership emergence and Kramer’s (2001) analysis of organizational paranoia, I will focus on paranoia as an antecedent and as a consequence of span of control. Paranoia has a rich clinical psychological tradition (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), yet to this date remains largely uninvestigated with regard to the issue of leadership (an exception is the theoretical account of Kramer and Gavrieli, 2004). Though, in its symptomatic expression paranoia resembles selfmonitoring, a trait that has already been closely linked with the issue of leadership emergence (Day et al, 2002). Given the resemblance of both concepts, I will explore both in concert to elucidate more of the underlying social additivity and sensitivity mechanism

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion