Investigating the Drivers of Managers’ Conspiracy Illusion in public Organizations using the Method of Interpretive Structural

پژوهش نامه مدیریت تحول

Article 4, Volume 13, Spring & summer 2021 - Serial Number 25, September 2021, Pages 85-108   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: 10.22067/tmj.2021.68044.1010

Authors

fattah sharifzadeh¹; mahdieh vishlaghi^{* 2}

¹Professor in Public Administration, Department of Management and Accounting, Allame tabatabaei University, tehran, Iran

²Ph.D. Student in Public Administration, Faculty of Economics, Management and Administrative Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

Abstract

1- INTRODUCTION
The illusion of conspiracy in managers makes them think that employees are secretly and maliciously seeking to conspire and achieve selfish goals, which leads to increased pessimism about employees and organizational trauma. Therefore, identifying the factors affecting the delusion of managers in state organizations and eliminating them leads to facilitating the path of organizational development and transformation. Accordingly, the purpose of the present study is to identify and level the drivers of the conspiracy illusion of managers.
2- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The illusion of conspiracy has been described as a conspiracy carried out by a number of powerful agents to achieve destructive goals. conspiracy theories have symptoms such as anomie, distrust of authority, political pessimism, machiavellianism, and disability. conspiracy theories can change the way people think about social events. the illusion of conspiracy occurs in conditions of uncertainty, and due to low access to accurate information people are more likely to have the illusion of conspiracy. factors such as openness and intellectual curiosity, inclination to new ideas, and effective communication are among the factors that reduce the illusion of organizational conspiracy. the illusion of organizational conspiracy can be expressed for powerful groups in the workplace (managers) who seek to achieve goals that are done in secret. managers may deliberately hire or fire their preferred candidate. the illusion of conspiracy in organizations leads to the dismissal of employees and key members of the organization. organizations as social institutions are among the most important places for the formation of conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theories, in addition to the destructive effects they will have on the organization, also have harmful effects on society.
3- METHODOLOGY                                                                                                     
The present research is a descriptive survey in terms of data collection, and it is an applied study in terms of purpose. it was conducted in two steps. in the first step, using the qualitative content analysis method, the factors affecting the illusion of organizational conspiracy were identified and extracted through semi-structured interviews with 15 professors of management and psychology. the validity and reliability of the interviews were confirmed by the method of relative content validity and the kappa cohen index, respectively. coding of interviews using atlas software led to the identification of 11 drivers in the formation of conspiracy theories. in the second step, in order to level the identified drivers, the opinions of 26 senior managers of public organizations located in the province of west azerbaijan were obtained using a questionnaire distributed based on purposive sampling method and analyzed by structural equation modeling. the validity and reliability of the questionnaire were confirmed by content validity and test-post-test methods, respectively.
4- RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Encryption of interview data led to the identification of 11 drivers, cultural weakness, lack of transparency, norm-breaking, incompetence, political behavior, conscientious leadership style, dysfunctional communication, poor performance, corruption, power gap, and managerial weakness. in the interpretive structural model, the interrelationships and influence between the criteria of different levels were well shown, which leads to a better understanding of the decision-making space by managers. the modeling performed with an interpretive structural approach has classified the identified propulsions into six levels. the sixth level is related to the most effective drivers and the first level is related to the most effective drivers. according to the micmac matrix, the results indicate that there is no criterion in the autonomous sector, and this indicates that among the factors affecting the conspiracy illusion, there is no factor that does not affect the conspiracy illusion, and all factors are effective. in the field of influence, there is only a conscientious leadership style, which has low dependence and high influence. in the dependency sector, where the dependency rate is high and there is weak influence, the variables of non-transparency, inefficient communication, and managerial weakness are located. in the link section, which is high dependency and influence, there are variables of cultural weakness, norm-breaking, meritocracy, political behaviors, poor performance, power distance, and corruption meaning that they have high influence and power in terms of dependence.
5- CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS
The illusion of conspiracy in the managers of organizations leads to a kind of contradiction, paranoia, pessimism, and conflicts that cause irreparable damage to the organization. according to the findings of the research at the sixth level, cultural weakness and managerial weakness have had the greatest impact compared to other factors, however, cultural weakness has been the most influential factor. at the fifth level of the model is corruption, which is somehow affected by cultural weakness and managerial weakness. at the fourth level, there is a conscientious leadership style and distance from power and undesirable performance, which is influenced by cultural weakness, poor management, and corruption in organizations. at the third level is norm-breaking, which is influenced by conscientious leadership style, distance from power, and undesirable performance. in the second level, there is a lack of meritocracy in political behaviors and games, and in the first level, there is a lack of transparency and inefficient communication, which is due to the lack of transparency of information and procedures, as well as inefficient communication between managers and employees. the illusion of conspiracy increases in managers. in this regard, it is suggested that the culture of participation and support be replaced, which paves the way for more space for the presentation of views and self-openness of employees. increasing organizational competencies through the implementation of training courses, holding think tanks, and using the methods of the nominal and delphi groups can lead to an increase in knowledge, experience, and managerial abilities. reducing corruption and the need to comply with organizational norms leads to unity and integrity of members of the organization. transparency in organizational affairs and accountability for performance can reduce the illusion of conspiracy. in this regard, they should pay attention to the factors that create the illusion of conspiracy of managers in organizations and try to weaken these factors in order to achieve a moral organization with a healthy atmosphere.

Keywords

Managers; Conspiracy; managers' conspiracy theories; State Organizations

References

 

References

Attri, R.; Dev, N., & Sharma, V. (2013). Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: an overview. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 23(19), 11-71.

Azar, A., & Bayat, K. (2008). Business central process model design with interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach. Information Technology Management Quarterly, 1(1), 3-18. (in Persian).

Baden, C., & Sharon, T. (2021). Blinded by the lies? Toward an integrated definition of conspiracy theories. Communication Theory, 31(1), 82-106. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa023

Biddlestone, M.; Cichocka, A., Žeželj, I., & Bilewicz, M. (2020). Conspiracy theories and intergroup relations. Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, 219-230. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429452734-2_6

Bilewicz, M.; Cichocka, A., & Soral, W. (2015). The psychology of conspiracy. Routledge.

Cichocka, A.; Marchlewska, M.; Golec de Zavala, A., & Olechowski, M. (2016). ‘They will not control us’: Ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies. British Journal of Psychology, 107(3), 556-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12158

Cuddy, A. J.; Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631-648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631

De Moura, G. R.; Abrams, D.; Retter, C.; Gunnarsdottir, S., & Ando, K. (2009). Identification as an organizational anchor: how identification and job satisfaction combine to predict turnover intention. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 540-557. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.553

Douglas, K. M.; Cichocka, A., & Sutton, R. M. (2020). Motivations, emotions and belief in conspiracy theories. Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, 181-191. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429452734-2_3

Douglas, K. M., & Leite, A. C. (2017). Suspicion in the workplace: Organizational conspiracy theories and work-related outcomes. British Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 486-506. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12212

Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2011). Does it take one to know one? endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 544-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x

Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2015). Climate change: why the conspiracy theories are dangerous. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71(2), 98-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340215571908

Douglas, K. M.; Sutton, R. M.; Callan, M. J.; Dawtry, R. J., & Harvey, A. J. (2015). Someone is pulling the strings: hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories. Thinking & Reasoning, 22(1), 57-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586

Douglas, K. M.; Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2019). Belief in conspiracy theories. The Social Psychology of Gullibility, 61-76. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203787-4

Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2015). Qualitative content analysis. Content Analysis, 81-120. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215491.003.0004

Goreis, A., & Voracek, M. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological research on conspiracy beliefs: field characteristics, measurement instruments, and associations with personality traits. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1), 205. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00205

Goertzel, T. (2010). Conspiracy theories in science. EMBO reports, 11(7), 493–499. http://doi:10.1038/ embor.2010.84

Hagen, K. (2017). Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style: do conspiracy theories posit implausibly vast and evil conspiracies? Social Epistemology, 32(1), 24-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1352625

Hancock, J. I.; Allen, D. G.; Bosco, F. A.; McDaniel, K. R., & Pierce, C. A. (2011). Meta-analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance. Journal of Management, 39(3), 573-603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311424943

Hofstadter, R., & Eysenck, H. J. (1966). The Paranoid style in american politics and other essays.by richard hofstadter. Political Science Quarterly, 81(4), 645. https://doi.org/10.2307/2146916

Imhoff, R., & Lamberty, P. (2020). Conspiracy beliefs as psycho-political reactions to perceived power. Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, 192-205. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429452734-2_4

Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2013). The social consequences of conspiracism: exposure to conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics and to reduce one's carbon footprint. British Journal of Psychology, 105(1), 35-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12018

Jolley, D.; Meleady, R., & Douglas, K. M. (2019). Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups. British Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12385

Lantian, A.; Wood, M., & Gjoneska, B. (2020). Personality traits, cognitive styles and worldviews associated with beliefs in conspiracy theories. Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, 155-167. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429452734-2_1

McCauley, C., & Jacques, S. (1979). The popularity of conspiracy theories of presidential assassination: a bayesian analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(5), 637-644.

 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.5.637

Meyer, J. P.; Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 665-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.383

Miller, S. (2002). Conspiracy theories: Public arguments as coded social critiques: a rhetorical analysis of the twa flight 800 conspiracy theories. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39(1), 40-56.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2002.11821576

Oliver, J. E.; & Wood, T. J. (2014). Conspiracy theories and the paranoid Style(s) of mass opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 952-966. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12084

Rankin, J. (2017). The conspiracy theory meme as a tool of cultural hegemony: A critical discourse analysis. PhD dissertation. fielding graduate university. santa barbara. CA.

Schwepker, C. H. (2001). Ethical climate's relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention in the salesforce. Journal of Business Research, 54(1), 39-52.

 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(00)00125-9

Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2009). Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(2), 202-227.

 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x

Swami, V.; Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Unanswered questions: a preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 749 761. http://doi:10.1002/acp.1583

Swami, V., & Coles, R. (2010). The truth is out there: belief in conspiracy theories. the psychologist, 23. 560–563.

Swami, V.; Coles, R.; Stieger, S.; Pietschnig, J.; Furnham, A.; Rehim, S., & Voracek, M. (2011). Conspiracist ideation in britain and austria: evidence of a monological belief system and associations between individual psychological differences and real-world and fictitious conspiracy theories. British Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 443-463.

 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02004.x

Van Dick, R.; Christ, O.; Stellmacher, J.; Wagner, U.; Ahlswede, O.; Grubba, C.; Hauptmeier, M.; Hohfeld, C.; Moltzen, K., & Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15(4), 351-360.

 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00424.x

Van Prooijen, J., & De Vries, R. E. (2016). Organizational conspiracy beliefs: implications for leadership styles and employee outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(4), 479-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9428-3

Van Prooijen, J., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). Belief in conspiracy theories: basic principles of an emerging research domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(7), 897-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2530

Van Prooijen, J., & Jostmann, N. B. (2012). Belief in conspiracy theories: the influence of uncertainty and perceived morality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 109-115. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1922

Van Prooijen, J., & Song, M. (2021). The cultural dimension of intergroup conspiracy theories. British Journal of Psychology, 112(2), 455-473. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12471

Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115-117.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845

Wood, M. J. (2016). Conspiracy suspicions as a proxy for beliefs in conspiracy theories: implications for theory and measurement. British Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 507-527. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12231