leadershipmurphy.weebly.com · web viewpower and influence are often associated with positions of...

Running head: POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK

Power and Influence in Team Work

Harlan Kefalas, Ryan Murphy, Deborah Phelps, and Allie White

Fort Hays State University

Dr. Brent Goertzen

LDRS 807

Leadership and Teams in Collaborative Environments

POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK

Power and Influence in Team Work

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

- Understand the bases of power within a work team

- Understand the evolution of authority and influence within organizations

- Understand the relationship between authority, influence and team productivity

- Understand transactional and transformational leadership theories

- Explain how ethics and morals guide transformational leadership

Overview of the Topic

Power and influence are often associated with positions of leadership in collaborative and

team environments. Power may be perceived by team members due to organizational structure,

personal characteristics, expertise, and/or access to specialized information. Conger and

Kanungo (1988) noted, “In management and social influence literature, power is primarily a

relational concept used to describe the perceived power or control that an individual actor or

organizational subunit has over others (p. 472). The method by which a leader chooses to exert

their perceived power can drastically influence team morale, motivation, performance, and

satisfaction. Individuals may exert their power through negative or positive influences. Negative

influences foster distrust and a lack of organizational commitment, while positive influences

boost motivation and morale. Perceived power of those in leadership roles can be used as a tool

to enhance positive influences and mitigate against negative ones.

This chapter will begin with a review of early perspectives of power and influence, which

include the democratization of the workforce, participative management theory, authority and

team typology, psychological empowerment and workplace effectiveness, early self-designing

1


work teams, authority and self-managing work teams, and influences within teams. A review of

contemporary perspectives will follow covering paradigm shift from leader-centric to

collaborative leadership models, influential leadership theories, positive and negative influences,

transformational leadership and competency-based supervision, and the importance of context.

Next we will reflect on the antecedents of power and influence with a focus on Taylor’s

scientific management, McGregor’s Theory X and Y, Mulder’s Power Distance Theory, and the

role of holacracy. The chapter will conclude by identifying the outcomes of power and influence

with a particular focus on the notion that how leaders use power and influence matters. Readers

should develop an understanding of the bases of power within a work team, the evolution of

power and influence, the role of power and influence on team productivity, the differences

between transactional and transformational leadership, and how ethics and morals guide or

influence leadership.

Key Terms

Charismatic leadership Manager-led team Self-directing teamCoercive power Norms Self-governing teamConformity Participative management theory Self-managing teamContingency model Power T-groupDemocratize Power distance Theory XEmpowerment Psychological empowerment Theory YHolacracy Self-determination

Early Perspectives of Power and Influence

The idea that managers should concede authority to workers found its roots in Douglas

McGregor’s Theory Y. This early attempt to democratize the workplace or provide a more equal

voice to the worker, was a proposition that recommended management should listen to and

involve workers (Weisbord, 2012). On its heels was Kurt Lewin’s T-group, an early group

structure designed to identify human resource problems and solutions, and then in 1970,

2


Blansfield’s Team Effectiveness Theory became one of the first attempts to demonstrate that the

granting of power, skills and resources to teams could optimize systems, resulting in improved

quality and profits (Weisbord, 2012).

The Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model

Participative management theory is the sharing of increased decision-making authority

and responsibility with subordinates to increase the level of involvement in the control of the

organization (Cotton, 1994). For leaders implementing the theory, one vital question to be asked

is how much or what type of subordinate participation will positively affect the organization?

One attempt to answer this question was made by Vroom and Yetton in 1973 through the

development of a contingency model or a model that aids decision-making by providing a set of

outcomes that are dependent on the contingent or existing circumstances or in this case,

attributes. The Vroom-Yetton (V-Y) Model included rule sets that guided the leader in the

selection of autocratic (A), consultative (C) or group (G) decision-making choices with the final

option preserving the authority given to participating subordinates (Vroom & Jago, 1978).

Vroom and Jago’s (1978) test of the model positively identified V-Y as an effective

model for decision-selection processes. Researchers believed the data showed the model would

communicate when autocratic processes would be successful and participative processes would

fail and concluded with the opinion that both types of decisions would reduce errors in current

managerial practices (Vroom & Jago, 1978). This successful research was not an isolated case;

however, these initial studies collected information from managers only without the perspectives

of subordinates to those decision choices (Margerison & Glube, 1979). Research expanded in

the 1980’s to include ratings of leadership behaviors exposing reputational consequences for

3

Autocratic

Participative

AI: The leader solves the problem or makes the decision using the information available at the time.

AII. The leader obtains any necessary information from subordinates, then decides on a solution with our without telling the subordinates the purpose of the questions, the problem or decision the leader is working on. The subordinate input does not play a role in the definition of the problem or in generating or evaluating alternative solutions.

CI. The leader shares the problem with relevant subordinates individually, getting their ideas and suggestions but without bringing them together as a group. The leader then makes the decision and may or may not reflect the subordinates’ influence

CII. The leader shares the problem with subordinates in a group meeting where subordinate ideas and suggestions are solicited. The leader makes the decision, which may or may not reflect the subordinates’ influence.

GII The leader shares the problem with subordinates as a group and in partnership generate and evaluate alternatives, attempting to reach agreement on a solution. The leader’s role is much like that of chair, coordinating the discussion, keeping focus on the problem and ensuring critical issues are discussed. The leader provides the group with information or ideas but does not try to impress these solutions on the group, but instead is willing to accept and implement any solution that has the approval of the entire group.


Figure 1. Taxonomy of Vroom-Yetton Model Decision Processes. Flow chart of leader decision-making processes. Adapted from “Taxonomy of Decision Processes,” by Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. C., 1978, JAP, 63(2), p. 152.

those leaders who made autocratic choices that withheld authority from subordinates (Heilman,

Hornstein, Cage & Herschlag, 1984). Subjects asked to assume the role of subordinate provided

the following information on the regard for authority by those in that follower role:

Subordinates rated leaders as less competent when autocratic behaviors were applied,

even when the model indicated an autocratic decision was correct;

Leaders who granted subordinate authority received higher likability ratings when

compared with those displaying autocratic decision-making choices; and

4

Task Completion

Management of Performance Processes

Team Design

Design of the Organizational Context

Manager-led teamsSelf-managing teamsSelf-designing teamsSelf-governing teams

Authority


Subordinates rated autocratic decisions as less beneficial for the organization,

particularly when the situation appeared to call for shared decision-making (Heilman

et al., 1984)

Field and House (1990), the first to use manager and subordinate reports, collected

information about decision processes, quality and acceptance requirements. Individual

interviews revealed self-reported manager information supported the validity of the model, but

the data collected from subordinates did not (Field & House, 1990). This outcome supported the

earlier research focused on subordinate perspectives of leadership behavior, specifically those

behaviors related to decision-making processes (Heilman et al., 1984).

Authority and Team Type

Figure 2. Team design and authority. Team design as determined by level of group authority. Adapted from The design of work teams by Hackman, J. R., 1987, Handbook of organizational behavior.

Work team models with clearly defined levels of authority include manager-led, self-

managing, self-directing, and self-governing teams. Each bestows incremental levels of

authority with manager-led teams confined to task execution and self-governing teams holding

the highest level (Thompson, 2014).

5


Psychological Empowerment and Self-Managing Teams

If empowerment is “the process by which a leader or manager shares his or her power

with subordinates” then its complement, psychological empowerment, is “the process of

enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of

conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal” (Conger & Kanungo, 1988, p.

473-474). Early research identified five stages in the employee empowerment process which

include expressing confidence in subordinate abilities, providing opportunities for subordinate

participation, and providing autonomy from organizational constraints as leadership practices

(Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Self-determination, defined as the freedom to make choices, should

be the result of empowerment in the workplace, and organizations that implement self-managing

work teams intend to empower employees but did research reveal that employees felt

empowered?

Qualitative information from the late 1990’s provided a closer look at what researchers

called empowerment “from the inside-out,” that is, not from the perspective of the organization’s

team design and support but instead directly from the team members (Bushe, Havlovic &

Coetzer, 1996, p. 36). Subjects reported significant feelings of empowerment due to high levels

of granted authority from managers who “did not interfere with their work and who consulted

with them before making any decisions that might affect them” and reached a high point when

the organization made the decision not to replace managers as they parted from the company

(Bushe et al., 1996, p. 38). Positive outcomes accompanying employee empowerment included

increased customer satisfaction, reduced employee stress, increased innovation resulting in

efficiencies and a transition from fear-driven to self-driven motivation for employees (Bushe et

al., 1996).

6


Research by Kirkman and Rosen (1999) hypothesized that higher levels of team

empowerment would lead to higher levels of productivity, proactive behaviors, organizational

commitment, job satisfaction and customer service. Results proved that not only was team

empowerment significantly related to productivity, customer service, organizational commitment

and job satisfaction, but that it fully mediated the relationship between the team performance

variables (productivity, proactivity, and customer service) and team member attitudes (job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and team commitment) (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).

Early Self-Designing Work Teams: The Japanese Quality Circle

The introduction of the quality circle (QC), a small group of employees from the same

department who voluntarily meet regularly to identify and solve issues of quality, to America

and Europe from Japan might provide an important history lesson for how not to motivate

workers through team work. Implemented on a large scale in Japan from 1955 to 1960, the QC

had a measure of success in Japan where it was an autonomous part of the overall organization,

while its counterparts, studied during the last two decades of the twentieth century did not share

that same place in the organizational structure of many businesses nor its success (Munchus,

1983; Watanabe, 1991; Wood, Hull & Azumi, 1983).

Autonomy, defined here as the freedom from external control or influence and

specifically, the freedom or authority to select significant problems and then implement a

solution, was found to be crucial to the success of the QC (Stavroulakis, 1994; Watanabe, 1991;

Wood et al., 1983). Longitudinal research conducted over a three-year period and using input

from 73 subjects involved in eight QCs produced results that indicated a honeymoon period of

approximately eighteen months during which the QC units produced positive results but then

declined (Griffin, 1988, p. 354). This “honeymoon effect” was described in earlier by Lawler

7


and Moherman (1987) as a phase during which employees are enthusiastic about a new initiative,

receive increased attention from management, and are motivated to tackle workplace problems

(p. 42). However, this research also brought to light the repercussions after the honeymoon:

employee disillusionment characteristically sets in with reasons relating to power that include

push back from middle managers and an overall failure by the larger organization to implement

some of the ideas generated (Lawler & Moherman, 1987).

This same disillusionment became apparent approximately 48 months into the

implementation of the QCs studied by Griffin (1988) with qualitative feedback expressing

employee indifference about their participation combined with a belief that management was less

interested in the solutions they recommended (Griffin, 1988). Nonetheless, quantitative data

from the plant’s controller painted a different picture: of the 122 recommendations made by the

eight QCs, the company had adopted 81 without changing the employees’ proposals and

implemented another 10 after some modification, a 75% implementation rate (Griffin, 1988).

What then caused the employee disenchantment with the QC project? No conclusive

information was presented by the researcher, but one plausible theory is that while the

organization had empowered its employees, those employees did not individually feel

psychologically empowered.

Influence within Teams

Social Influence. Social influence or the attempt to change people has been studied in the

team setting since the middle of the twentieth century (Levi, 2001). Psychologists postulated

that normative influence, change caused by the desire to conform to norms or the rules defined

by a group, and informational influence, change caused by the acceptance of information from

others, are important antecedents to social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). In teams, social

8


influence may cause conformity, the willingness to change one’s perspectives and/or decision(s)

due to influence from others.

Bases of Power. One scale, developed to measure French and Raven’s (1959) Bases of

Social Power used the following classifications: Reward, coercive, legitimate, referent and

expert (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989). Each of these types of power has a cost to group

effectiveness from personal dislike that can arise with the use of coercive power to reward power

which may leave other team members feeling manipulated (Levi, 2001).

Corrupting Effects of Power. Inequality in group settings ultimately leads to bad

behavior. Differences in status among group members can lead to disparate amounts of

influence with lower-status members contributing less and higher-status members dominating

and passive-aggressive and aggressive behavior leading to ineffective outcomes (Levi, 2001).

Contemporary Perspectives of Power and Influence

In order to demonstrate proficiency in any facet of leadership behavior, managers must

glean insight from multiple paradigms of contemporary times. Historically, effective

management was presumed to be leader-centric and individualistic. It was thought that

businesses would enjoy success by embracing a “give and take” approach to management, often

instilling fear into employees to enhance performance. However, recent advancements in

leadership studies have identified emerging concepts that discount previously constructed views

relating to effective management styles. Contemporary paradigms have resulted in the

application of new theories which help guide leadership approaches. Accordingly, the two

emerging leadership theories reviewed in this chapter build upon the recent paradigm shift as it

applies to power and influence in the context of leadership.

9


Transformational Leadership

During the 1970’s, transformational approaches began to transcend transactional

approaches to leadership. Bass (1985) furthered the work of Burns (1978) with his

Transformational Leadership Theory, a power and influence theory based upon the transactional-

transformational leadership paradigm. Transformational leadership is empirically rooted in idea

that leaders advance followers to a higher level of motivation by appealing to their higher needs

(Burns, 2003; Rost, 1991). Transformational leaders influence followers to change by

developing a clear vision and clearly communicating their vision in a manner that encourages

followers to share their enthusiasm for bringing their vision to fruition. Furthermore,

transformational leaders empower their followers by challenging them to perform their best,

often resulting in higher than average levels of performance.

The Four I’s. One set of characteristics central to the transformational leadership model

are commonly referred to as the Four I’s of transformational leadership (Kezar, Carducci, &

Contreras-McGavin, 2006). These attributes enable the leader to inspire followers as she

portrays an ideal role model, communicates follower expectations and provides individualized

attention.

10

Idealized InfluenceLeader serves as an ideal role model for followers

Individualized ConsiderationLeader demonstrates genuine concern for the needs and feelings of followers

Intellectual StimulationThe leader’s ability to hold followers to high expectations

Transformational Leadership

Inspirational MotivationThe leader’s unique ability to inspire and motivate others


Figure 3. The Four I’s. Leader attributes and behaviors characteristic of the transformational leadership style. Adapted from Rethinking the "L" word in higher education: The revolution in research on leadership by Kezar et al., 2006.

Transformational leadership styles have proven advantageous, particularly in a world

where diversity and complex forces complicate past leadership styles. Perhaps its greatest

feature, however, has been in its ability to bring about new concepts to the field of leadership

studies (Kezer et al., 2006).

Charismatic Leadership

The charismatic leadership model, developed by Conger and Kanungo (1987, 1988),

identifies leader charisma as its foundation and focuses on a set of leader attributes that can be

directly observed from the follower’s perspective (Rowold & Laukamp, 2009). Charismatic

leaders employ their sense of style, flair, and confidence to build relationships with others. And

much like transformational leaders, charismatic leaders use these relationships to influence and

inspire followers. Common traits of effective charismatic leaders include extraordinary

communication skills, compassion, and substance.

Recent empirical work has validated charismatic leadership as a useful and effective

approach, gaining the attention of scholars and practitioners. Rowold and Laukamp’s (2009)

study of charismatic leadership, the first of its kind, identified a positive relationship between

11


charismatic leadership and an objective performance indicator. Their work shed new light on the

adequacy of charismatic leadership and recommended future research to further evaluate

charismatic concepts as they relate to power and influence.

The Influence of Contemporary Perspectives of Power and Influence of Organizations

The inclusion of transformational leadership behaviors and attributes into practice creates

positive outcomes within many organizational settings. A study by Deschamps, Rinfret, Lagace,

and Prive (2016) examined this effect on employee motivation in the context of organizational

justice within the Quebec healthcare system, identifying a relatively high correlation between

transformational leadership and positive followers’ perceptions of both procedural and

interactional justices. Similarly, Asif, Ayyub, and Bashir (2014) studied the relationship

between transformational leadership style and organizational commitment in the context of

psychological empowerment within the textile industry of Punjab Pakistan. Findings revealed a

significant association between psychological empowerment and affective organizational

commitment, further validating the efficacy of transformational leadership style. Finally, Chia-

Huei and Zhen (2015) further replicated beneficial implications through the examination of the

effects of transformational leadership on team proactivity within construction management teams

in China. This study discovered a decisive association between transformational leadership and

proactivity.

Concern about the “generalizability of transformational leadership attributes across

cultures” across the global nature of modern society prompted one study completed by the

Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness project (GLOBE) indicated that while

certain attributes of transformational leadership transcend cultures, others do not (Kezar et al.,

2006, p. 7). Specifically, the study revealed that certain traits such as risk-taking vary

12


significantly between cultures; this significant finding may prompt additional research on risk-

taking, an attribute of transformational leadership.

Practical Implications for Practice

The emergence of contemporary paradigms in the context of power and influence bring a

new understanding of what is required of effective leaders. As discussed within the text,

transformational leaders have the potential to bring about many positive changes, especially

within organizations accustomed to operating under antiquated approaches to power. Effective

transformational leaders have a unique ability to institute, initiate, and implement culture

changes that distribute influence more equally throughout the organization. Avolio and Bass

(1999) endorse the use of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to identify the

characteristics of a transformational leader and infuse transformational approaches into current

practice. Kim, Liden, Kim, and Lee (2015) recommend that organizations also seek leaders and

followers with high core self-evaluation (CSE) to augment the efficacy of transformational

leadership. Thus, it may be presumed that in order to maximize the effectiveness of

transformational leadership, organizations should promote education, development and skills

training in leadership training programs.

Emerging Views

Leadership research has evolved significantly over recent years and a variety of emerging

concepts continue to influence paradigm shifts. Many scholars embrace the concepts

surrounding transformational leadership, yet some reject the theory based on the hierarchical

nature of its approach. Barker (2001) asserts that “superior/subordinate” relationships diminish

the importance of other leadership variables, rendering the theory inferior to others. Stahl and

Sully de Luque (2014) propose that future studies concisely define responsible leadership and

13


focus on the influence that cultural diversity has upon responsible leadership. Vickers (2005) as

noted by Stahl and Sully de Luque (2014) notes that “global corporations operate in nations

where bribery, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and a variety of other issues are not

uniformly viewed as illegal or even unethical” (p. 30). It is likely that future power and

influence theories will examine cultural intelligence as they apply to effective leadership

approach.

Key Antecedents of Power and Influence

In recent history power and influence have become increasingly important in direct

correlation to the increase in organizational complexity with research from the turn of the

twentieth century attempting to explain worker behavior and develop principles for managers to

follow. Frederick Taylor (1915), widely known as the father of modern management, wrote The

Principles of Scientific Management and forty-five years later, Douglas McGregor (1960)

developed his Theory X and Theory Y management principles. A specific focus on power and

influence followed in 1977 when Mauk Mulder developed his power distance theory. With

technological advances, new models of organizational structure upend traditional power and

influence structures. One example, a holacracy, a flattened organizational structure with no job

titles, “removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles”

(Holacracy, n.d.).

Scientific Management

During the 1880’s Frederick Taylor began revolutionizing management practices.

Codifying his ideas and concepts in The Principles of Scientific Management, he believed that

only experts, trained industrial engineers, could more efficiently design tasks for workers. Time

and motion studies allowed tasks to be broken down to the simplest level and inefficiencies

14

Taylor’s Five Scientific Principles

Science, not rule of thumb

Harmony,not discord

Cooperation, not individual

Maximum output, not restricted output

Development of each man to his greatest efficiency and prosperity


identified. Taylor (1915) believed the ideal worker, the first class man, was not lazy but did

prioritize pay over other types of incentives.

In line with Taylor’s belief, a manager’s primary influence method was through wages,

and as workers learned more tasks, they earned more pay. Managers, occupying a power

position, influenced workers through the control of their wages. A set average output created

incentives for work to self-regulate production while pay for skills knowledge incentivized

workers to learn more jobs.

Figure 3. Five Scientific Principles. Principles of scientific management as developed by Frederick W. Taylor. Adapted from The Principles of Scientific Management by Taylor, F. W., 1915, p. 140.

One of Taylor’s largest influences was the concept of the external consultant. The

organization could empower the consultant, an expert from outside the organization, to

determine the optimal task design and discover any resistance of middle-management to new

ideas. However, in a role of outside the business, the consultant’s recommendations were often

never truly embraced by the company’s management.

Taylor’s principles continue to impact today’s workplace. The United States Army still

includes much of the institutional practices or structure of the Elihu Root reforms. Root applied

Taylor’s scientific management theories to the military context (Vandergriff, 2012). Outside of

the military, Taylor’s ideas still influence the workplace any time power and influence resides

primarily at the management level. However, in team-based organizations with shared power and

influence, Taylor’s division of work is less applicable (Benschop & Doorewaard, 1998).

15


Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor (1960) developed two models explaining managers’ thoughts about

their workers, Theory X and Theory Y, in The Human Side of Enterprise. Theory X adherents

find workers inherently lazy and therefore, must be closely supervised or forced to work.

Managers with this belief use coercive power or authority dependent on fear and/or the use of

punishment or threat, to force workers to produce. Theory X follows Taylorism to a negative

extreme – time clocks, subdivided jobs, rigid job description and titles giving managers the

authority to treat people in any manner they desire. Influence tactics in Theory X primarily focus

on monetary gain only as employees possess little knowledge about the greater business context.

In sharp contrast, Theory Y adherents believe workers willingly seek responsibility for

their actions. Managers employing Theory Y utilize transformational leader behaviors and

persuasive influencing techniques to empower their subordinates. Today’s leader must be

flexible and able to react to situations differently; successful application of Theory Y requires a

larger working knowledge of power and influencing tactics.

Power Distance Theory

In 1977, Mauk Mulder culminated decades of research on power with his book, The

Daily Power Game. Power is a scarce commodity: people with power try to keep it while those

without power try to increase it. Power distance is the difference between a less powerful person

and a more powerful person. Mulder attempted to explain why managers in hierarchical

organizations did their best to maintain their power and, how in an attempt to maintain power,

they resist organizational change.

Power distance enlargement tendency concerns the relationship of a person with more

power towards a less powerful person. Mulder (1977) describes power distance enlargement as:

16


“the more powerful person will strive to maintain or to increase the power distance to the less powerful person” and “the greater the difference from the less powerful person, the stronger the striving to increase it” (p.4)

Power distance reduction theory explains why people with less power attempt to increase

it. Mulder (1977) described the behavior of a person of lesser power towards a person of greater

power:

“individuals will strive to reduce the power distance between themselves and more powerful others” and “the smaller the distance from the more powerful person, the stronger the tendency to reduce it” (p. 5)

Over thirty years later, Bruins and Wilke (1992) attempted to verify Mulder’s theory.

What may have been true in Mulder’s time is no longer true. People with little or no power are

not attempting to increase it. One possible explanation is that workers in a stable hierarchy feel

powerless to increase their authority. As a result, they know any attempt will end in failure

(Bruins & Wilke, 1992). Another reason is that modern organizations change, so that power and

status are temporary. Bruins and Wilke (1993) discovered individual motivation to change their

power distance is their “internalized norm about what one is entitled to” (p. 252). Mulder’s

theory has limited applicability in today’s organizational environment. As bureaucracies have

become more complex, power distance theory matters less (Bruins & Wilke, 1993).

Holacracy and Self-Governing Organizations

Previous power and influence theorists believed managers were necessary to possess

expert or positional power over their workers. Recently, holacracy, a self-governing method that

removes power from a traditional hierarchy, is being used to manage the workplace. Old

hierarchies with layers of middle managers are being smashed. No job titles are used. This new

strategy may be a modern interpretation of McGregor’s Theory Y with leadership moving from

an authoritative model to a more facilitative model with greater input from workers. Giang

17


(2015) stressed the need for employees to have influence within the organizational decision

making processes.

Key Outcomes of Power and Influence

How leaders use their power and influence matters and directly impacts organizational

outcomes (Burke et al., 2006). When leaders empower their subordinates, productivity rises.

Self-governing organizations outperform other organizational structures (LRN, 2016). When

75% of employees cite their immediate manager as a source of stress (Choi & Dickson, 2010), it

is clear that leaders are misusing their power and influence, and it may be undermining their

pursuit of organizational goals.

Meyer and Allen (1991) believe employees remain in an organization for three reasons:

need benefits, it is the right thing to do, or they are happy and emotionally attached to the

organization. The last item is the component most related to a manager’s power and influence.

When examining the use of power though, some researchers view it as a zero-sum game. Any

power given to subordinates is a reduction in their power (Randolph & Kemery, 2011). Tjosvold

(2006) believes power is expandable. Randolph (1995) takes the view that empowerment

releases power workers already possess from experience and knowledge.

Negative Outcomes

Employee Turn-over. An easy to measure the negative impact of misused power and

influence is voluntary employee turnover. Cost to replace an employee is difficult to determine

with estimates from 30% of an employee’s annual salary and 50% of a manager’s salary (Choi &

Dickson, 2010). Borysenko (2015) believes the range is higher, 30-50% for entry-level, 150%

for mid-level management, and 400% for high/very specialized workers. In 2004, the cost to

recruit one soldier was $15,000 (Buddin, 2005).

18


While much time and energy is spent on recruiting the right person for the organization,

relationship quality between the employee and their direct supervisor impacts retention the most.

Unfortunately, individuals occupying a supervisory role believe their use of power and influence

is better than their employees view it (Agrusa & Lema, 2007). Klocke (2009) discovered

perceptions of self and others alters once a person becomes a supervisor. Finally, supervisors

become blind to their impact on employees; research reveals three-fourths of employees who

voluntarily leave cite the relationship with their supervisor as the primary reason (Agrusa &

Lema, 2007).

Managers who resort to “perks, tit-for-tat and bonuses” as influence tools miss the

possible impact of their position (Haque, 2016, p. 3). Moving away from these influence

methods can increase organizational capabilities. Burke et al. (2006), determined transactional

influence methods have little impact on overall team effectiveness.

Groupthink. Group members will automatically position one another based on their

perceived status of each other (Islam & Zyphur, 2005). This may unintentionally cause conflicts,

especially when perceptions and reality are not congruent. If one is used to a position of power

and in the team, has a lower amount, they may act at cross purposes.

Conformity, a type of social influence causing individuals to change beliefs or behaviors

in order to fit in a group, can result in groupthink. Groupthink places “consensus above all other

priorities” (Thompson, 2011, p. 157). Similarly, the Abilene paradox occurs when conflict

avoidance leads to poor decision-making because individual power within the group is

imbalanced. Specifically, if one team member has more power than another, it is less likely they

will be contradicted (Islam & Zyphur, 2005). This conflict avoidance leads to conformity. Once

a decision is made, individuals may take on the role of preventing dissenters from speaking up

19


(Houghton, 2015). Leaders should use their power and influence to prevent these negative

outcomes.

Aggression. Within a work team, members may use social influence to attempt to change

or affect other team members. Levi (2001) identified three common power styles within groups:

aggressive (dominant and critical), nonassertive/passive (submissive and avoiding), and assertive

(positive and distributive). Aggression occurs when group member status is unequal with the

critical, demanding behavior of the dominating member causing resentful feelings,

defensiveness, and withdrawal by other members (Levi, 2001). When this occurs, there are two

possible sources for resolution: the remaining team members resolve to exert influence on the

offending member or request assistance from management, even outside the team, who possess

the authority to resolve the conflict. However, the potential for conflict to worsen increases if

management upholds the personal preference of one over the personal preference of another

(Levi, 2001; DeDreu & Vienan, 2001).

With conflict and conformity possible in work teams, both managers and team members

must utilize their power and influence to mitigate side effects. Group cohesion and performance

are linked (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). As a result, managerial focus should include cohesion and

influence methods should be used to “shape team performance” (DeDreu & Vienan, 2001).

Positive Outcomes

Empowerment. Not all managers misuse their power and influence. Good managers

empower their workers and empowered workers are more productive, more satisfied, and less

likely to leave their organization (Kim & Fernandez, 2015). Furthermore, organizational climate

must reflect employee empowerment. Key predictors of an empowerment climate are “expert,

20


referent, and reward” (Randolph & Kemery, 2011, p.103). Climate is set by the power base used:

positional and coercive power bases cannot empower workers.

Transformational leaders neutralize power distances (Liu & Liao, 2013). When power

distances are gone, workers are truly empowered. Line workers possess the knowledge needed to

make business decisions. Senior managers know the business context. Transformational leaders

increase the likelihood that their subordinates will speak up with their point of view in groups

(Liu & Liao, 2013). Managers employing transformational leadership behaviors empower

employees by ensuring all perspectives are expressed.

Virtual Teams

Traditional management thought arose from teams and organizations with work units located in

one geographic location. Many teams are now separated by distance and time. Managers of these

virtual teams must change their power and influence tactics to fit the new context. While certain

team designs reduce the influence management has on team outcomes, virtual team leaders have

a “stronger effect on team performance…than in face to face” (Purvanova & Bono, 2009, p.

352).

Case: Franklin’s Reflection

Late one evening Franklin, a Senior-level Manager specializing in process improvement

with ZYX Consulting, sat down to draft a speech recognizing the recent accomplishments of his

project management team. The project was to develop standardized security camera protocols for

a County Government covering several departments. Initial stakeholder interviews revealed that

this was a massive undertaking due to varying regulatory requirements and intended uses of

individual departments. As Franklin sat back, recalling the sense of despair among team

members as they realized the complexities of their project, a sly grin appeared on his face and he

21


began to revel in the knowledge that his team had flourished through positive influences and

psychological empowerment.

Franklin’s team lost their motivation when they had realized the scope of the project and

morale was very low. As the team lead, Franklin knew that he could set a new tone for team

motivation and morale, and although he would never acknowledge it, administration had chosen

him as the lead due to his transformative leadership style. Transformational leaders build

relationships, develop shared goals, and use cohesion to increase team effectiveness. Throughout

the project Franklin served as a positive influence on his team by mentoring, coaching, and role-

modeling, ultimately strengthening the relationships between team members. Franklin built

cohesion among team members by empowering them through participation in the decision

making process. As the team became empowered to cohesively make decisions, the level of

project ownership among members also increased.

While Franklin’s approach towards leadership may seem like commonsense, his choices

are not always common practice. Looking back at the project Franklin beamed with pride

knowing that his positive influences and desire to empower his colleagues led to the successful

completion of a very complex project. At the close of the project several team members informed

Franklin that his approach as the team lead increased motivation, morale, performance, and

satisfaction among members. Still Franklin’s pride did not come from the recognition he had

received from colleagues, but from the accomplishments of the team as whole. As Franklin

finalized his speech he was careful to include recognition for the team members who pulled

together as a cohesive unit, made the right decisions and performed at the highest level possible.

Questions for Reflection

What are some of the characteristics of Transformational Leadership?

22


In what other ways could Franklin have empowered his team?

In what ways did Franklin use his position of power to influence his team in positive

ways?

Case: Jane’s Dilemma

Jane took a deep breath and looked at the team assembled around the table. She still

couldn’t believe her supervisor had selected her to become a member; she still believed she was

the least knowledgeable employee in the College’s Financial Aid Office. And then she allowed

the group to manipulate her into leading! She shook her head in disbelief - she had begun to buy

in to the project at first, but after six weeks, she was ready to throw in the towel. This project

could really benefit their students but managing the disparate personalities and the inevitable

conflict that resulted during their meetings made her think back to that story from her childhood,

The Three Bears. From Jerry who dominated every conversation because he thought he knew so

much to Sara who seemed fearful and spoke too little – “Honestly!” she thought, “I just wish I

had more teammates like Frank – he’s just right. He has the most experience of all of us but he

listens patiently to everyone’s opinions. He isn’t afraid to share his knowledge but instead of

doing it in a way that bullies Sara and I, he ends up encouraging us to speak up, too.”

She slowly exhaled. She had to make her move today; it was now or never because this

project was dead in the water if she didn’t start acting like a leader. She looked at the list in front

of her: she’d start with the set of rules she’d written, then some better expectations for deadlines,

and finally, she was just going to remember to say no when Jerry began to accuse her of off-

loading the work he thought the leader was responsible. “I want to thank everyone for attending

today and begin by saying how much I appreciate all of the work each of you has contributed to

23


our assignment. However, because I want us to have a successful outcome, I think we should

begin with an honest discussion about how our work has progressed so far.”

Questions for Reflection

Until this meeting, has Jane demonstrated management or leadership of this team project?

What characteristics support your choice?

What type of power base is each group member exhibiting and will these power bases

affect the group’s overall effectiveness?

What transformational leadership behaviors should Jane use in order to correct the

imbalance in individual member power?

Conclusion

How an individual in a leadership role decides to utilize their power and influence can

largely determine the success or failure of a team or collaborative effort. Morale, motivation

performance, and satisfaction hinges upon how power is exercised, thereby influencing positive

or negative outcomes among team members. Early perspectives of power and influence within

teams and collaborative environments validated McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y, which suggested

at its most basic level that individuals want to work and they want to do their work well.

Research into participative management theory (Vroom and Yetton, 1973; Vroom and Jago,

1978; Margerison and Glube, 1979; Heilman et al, 1984; Field & House, 1990) gave credence to

the notion of involving subordinates in the decision making process. The benefits of leaders

using their positions power to influence psychological empowerment among their subordinates

emerged from this research. By the close of the twentieth-century psychological empowerment

was documented to increase productivity, customer service, organizational commitment and job

satisfaction.

24


Transformational leaders exemplify the concept of psychological empowerment by

serving as an idealized influence or role model, providing inspirational motivation,

demonstrating individualized consideration, and offering intellectual stimulation (Kezar, 2006).

Power is utilized as a platform to influence team members to achieve their best. Similarly,

charismatic leaders utilize personal characteristics, such as communication skills and

compassion, as a resource to influence others towards greater levels of performance. Current

research into the characteristics and attributes of transformational leaders appears promising as

an avenue for the development of leadership training programs that could teach managers and

supervisors to use their power and influence more effectively (Kezar et al., 2006; Kim et al.,

2015).

Power and influence can be used to create positive outcomes for teams through

empowerment and transformational leadership. Positive outcomes of power and influence result

in empowered teams that are productive, have high morale, retain organizational commitment,

and perform at high levels. Power and influence can create negative impacts that have the

potential to destroy relationship among team members and result in project failure. Employee

turn-over is one of the most significant and detrimental impacts of negative influences stemming

from abuses in power. How leaders use power and influence matters in the sense project

outcomes, team morale, employee satisfaction, and organizational commitment are largely at

stake.

25


References

Agrusa, J., & Lema, J. D. (2007). An Examination of Mississippi Gulf Coast Casino

Management Styles with Implications for Employee Turnover. UNLV Gaming Research

& Review Journal, 11(1), 13-26.

Asif, M., Ayyub, S., & Bashir, M. K. (2014). Relationship between Transformational Leadership

Style and Organizational Commitment: Mediating Effect of Psychological

Empowerment. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1635(1), 703-707. doi:10.1063/1.4903659

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and

transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of

Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.

Balls, A. (2003). The Flattening of Corporate Management. The National Bureau of Economic

Research. Retrieved July 21, 2016 from http://www.nber.org/digest/oct03/w9633.html

Barker, R. A. (2001). The Nature of Leadership. Human Relations, 54(4), 469-494.

Benschop, Y., & Doorewaard, H. (1998). Six of One and Half a Dozen of the Other: The Gender

Subtext of Taylorism and Team-based Work, Gender, work, and organization, 5(1), 5-18.

Borysenko, K. (2015, April 22). What Was Management Thinking? The High Cost Of Employee

Turnover, Eremedia. Retrieved July 15, 2016 from http://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/what-

was-leadership-thinking-the-shockingly-high-cost-of-employee-turnover/

Bruins, J. J., & Wilke, H. M. (1992). Cognitions and behaviour in a hierarchy: Mulder's power

theory revisited. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 22(1), 21-39.

Bruins, J. J., & Wilke, H.M. (1993). Upward power tendencies in a hierarchy: power distance

theory during bureaucratic rule. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 23(1), 239-254.

26


Buddin, R. (2005). Success of First Term Soldiers: The Effects of Recruiting Practices and

Recruit Characteristics. Retrieved July 15, 2016 from http://www.rand.org/content/

dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG262.sum.pdf

Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S.M. (2006). What type

of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly,

17(3), 288-307.

Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness. New York, NY:

Grove Press.

Bushe, G. R., Havlovic, S. J. & Coetzer, G. (1996) Exploring empowerment from the inside-out.

Journal for Quality and Participation, 19(2), 36-45.

Chia-Huei, W., & Zhen, W. (2015). How Transformational Leadership Shapes Team Proactivity:

The Mediating Role of Positive Affective Tone and the Moderating Role of Team Task

Variety. Group Dynamics, 19(3), 137-151. doi:10.1037/gdn0000027

Choi Y., & Dickson, D. R. (2010). A Case Study into the Benefits of Management Training

Programs: Impacts on Hotel Employee Turnover and Satisfaction Level. Journal Of

Human Resources In Hospitality & Tourism, 9(1), 103-116.

Cohen, S.G., & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from

the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and

practice. Academic of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.

Cotton, J. (1994). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work

attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

27


De Dreu, C.K.W., & Van Vienan, A.E.M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the

effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309-

328.

Deschamps, C., Rinfret, N., Lagacé, M. C., & Privé, C. (2016). Transformational Leadership and

Change: How Leaders Influence Their Followers' Motivation Through Organizational

Justice. Journal Of Healthcare Management, 61(3), 194-212

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences

upon individual judgment. The Journal Of Abnormal And Social Psychology, 51(3).

Field, R. H. G. & House, R. J. (1990). A test of the Vroom-Yetton Model using manager and

subordinate reports. Applied Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 362-366.

Forsyth, D.R. (2004). Group Dynamics (4th ed). Wadsworth Publishing Co.: Belmont, CA. (pp.

485-521).

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander,

Group dynamics (pp. 150-167). New York: Harper & Row.

Giang, V. (2015, May 15). What kind of leadership is needed in flat hierarchies, Fast Company.

Retrieved June 22, 2016 from http://www.fastcompany.com/3046371/the-new-rules-of-

work/what-kind-of-leadership-is-needed-in-flat-hierarchies

Griffin, R. W. (1988). Consequences of quality circles in an industrial setting: A longitudinal

assessment. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 338-358.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of

organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Haque, U. (2016, February 3). Are You a Leader, or Just Pretending to Be One? Harvard

Business Review.

28


Hellman, M. E., Hornstein, H. A., Cage, J. H., & Herzschlag, J. K. (1984). Reactions to

prescribed leader behavior as a function of role perspective: The case of the Vroom-

Yetton Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 50-60.

Hinkin, T R. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to

measure the French and Raven (1959) Bases of Social Power. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74(4), 561-567.

Holacracy (n.d.). Holacracy and Self-Organization Retrieved June 22, 2016 from

https://www.zapposinsights.com/about/holacracy

Houghton, D.P. (2015). Understanding Groupthink: The Case of Operation Market Garden.

Parameters, 45(3), 75-86.

Hurwitz, J. F. (1953). Some Effects of Power on the Relations among Group Members

Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. (2005). Power, Voice, and Hierarchy: Exploring the Antecedents of

Speaking Up in Groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(2), 93-103.

Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the "L" word in higher

education: The revolution in research on leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kim, S., & Fernandez, S. (2015). Employee Empowerment and Turnover Intention in the U.S.

Federal Bureaucracy. American Review of Public Administration 1–19

Kim, T., Liden, R., Kim, S., & Lee, D. (2015). The Interplay Between Follower Core Self-

Evaluation and Transformational Leadership: Effects on Employee Outcomes. Journal Of

Business & Psychology, 30(2), 345-355. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9364-7

Kirkman, B. L. & Rosen, B. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team

empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74.

29


Klocke, U. (2009). ‘I Am the Best’: Effects of Influence Tactics and Power Bases on

Powerholders’ Self-Evaluation and Target Evaluation. Group Processes & Intergroup

Relations, 12(5), 619–637.

Lawler, III, E. E. & Mohrman, S. A. (1987). Quality circles: After the honeymoon.

Organizational Dynamics, 15(4), 42-54.

Levi, D. (2001). Power and social influence. In Levi, D. Group dynamics for teams (pp. 133-

151). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.

Liu, S., & Liao, J. (2013). Transformational leadership and speaking up: power distance and

structural distance as moderators, Social Behavior and Personality, 41(10), 1747-1756

LRN Corporation. (2016). The how report: a global, empirical analysis of how governance,

culture and leadership impact performance. Retrieved June 22, 2016 from

http://howmetrics.lrn.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HOW-REPORT-5-6-16.pdf

Margerison, C. Y Glube, R. (1979). Leadership decision-making: An empirical test of the Vroom

and Yetton Model. Journal of Management Studies, 16(1), 45-55

McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 61–89.

Mulder, M. (1977). The Daily Power Game. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Munchus, III, G. (1983). Employer-employee based quality circles in Japan: Human resource

policy implications for American firms. Academy of Management Review, 892), 255-261.

Purvanova, R.K., & Bono, J.E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and

virtual teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 343-357.

30


Randolph, W. A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics,

23, 19-32.

Randolph, W, & Kemery, E. (2011). Managerial Use of Power Bases in a Model of Managerial

Empowerment Practices and Employee Psychological Empowerment. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 95–106.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

Rowold, J., & Laukamp, L. (2009). Charismatic leadership and objective performance

indicators. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(4), 602-621.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00365.x

Stahl, G.K., and Sully de Luque, Mary. (2014). Antecedents of Responsible Leader Behavior: A

Research Synthesis, Conceptual Framework, and Agenda for Future Research. The

Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 235-254.

Stavroulakis, D. (1995). Quality circle autonomy: Evidence from a Japanese subsidiary and a

Western subsidiary. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 14(2),

146-159.

Taylor, F.W. (1911) Scientific Management. London: Harper and Row.

Thompson, L.L. (2011). Making the team: A guide for managers. (4th ed). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tjosvold, D. (2006). Effects of power concepts and employee performance on managers’

empowering. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 27, 217-234.

Vandergriff, D. (2012). Raising the Bar. Middletown, DE: USNI Press.

Vroom, V. H. & Jago, A. G. (1978). On the validity of the Vroom-Yetton Model. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 63(2), 151-162.

31


Watanabe, S. (1991). The Japanese quality control circle: Why it works. International Labour

Review, 130(1), 57-80.

Weisbord, M. (2012). Productive workplaces: dignity meaning, and community in the 21st

century, 3rd edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Wood, R., Hull, Frank, & Azumi, K. (1983). Evaluating quality circles: The American

Application. California Management Review, 26(1), 37-53.

32

leadershipmurphy.weebly.com · web viewpower and influence are often associated with positions of...

Documents