9
Power and Leadership
Ed Mulholland/Getty Images for USOC
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Outline the major sources of power and principles of influence.
• Differentiate between power based on control and power based on cooperation and explain how these relate
to conformity and compliance.
• Identify the four major perspectives on leadership and discuss their defining characteristics.
• Compare and contrast charismatic and transformational leadership.
• Identify the key organizational elements in which the evolution toward cooperative-power and leadership
practices are most visibly expressed.
• Correlate the concept of employee empowerment to cooperative management practices in contemporary
organizations.
313
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 313
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Introduction
Pretest
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Self-managed teams have no need for external leadership.
Conformity and compliance both refer to being forced to adhere to someone else’s rules.
Empowered teamwork holds no real advantages over regular group work or teamwork.
Power and influence are the same thing.
Great leaders always have specific traits.
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Ramon works for a large company that has recently begun to use a team-based approach
for work. Most of the employees at this company are unfamiliar with the team-based
approach. Because of this, many team leaders, including Ramon, have little or no idea
how they should approach team leadership. Unfortunately, the organization has provided
little guidance or training for team leaders and is leaving it up to them to acquire the
knowledge to effectively lead their teams.
Ramon has worked at the company for 15 years and has contacts at all levels of the
organization, so he was honored to be appointed team leader, despite being uncertain
about how to execute his new role. Ramon begins to research leadership styles and the
nature of power and influence, and he learns that he has several sources of power at his
disposal. Because he was appointed team leader, he has legitimate power over his team.
Because of his connections throughout the company, he also has referent power, or the
ability to “borrow” authority by mentioning his connections. Additionally, his tenure at
the company has made him an expert at what he does; since his knowledge is valued and
shared, he also has expert and informational sources of power.
Ramon does not intend to use his power in a coercive or forceful manner; nor does he
have reward power over his team, as he does not control their pay or any bonuses they
may receive. This is fine with Ramon, as he does not want to force his team members to be
compliant or accept his power because they have to, but rather because they choose to.
The first several months of Ramon’s leadership are difficult. The team members are trying
to adjust to the new structure, and Ramon finds himself having to demand that they do
certain tasks to remain on track with their goals. While Ramon is well liked by the team
and is knowledgeable about their work and goals, team members are not yet choosing
to follow him simply because he has power over them. In fact, Ramon has encountered
a number of setbacks, including decreased productivity, and Ramon feels he must
constantly monitor and nag team members to get them to complete their work. Ramon
also feels that the team’s early cohesion has begun to fade; members seem to be working
more as individuals and less as a team than they were just a few months ago.
Ramon does not want his team to continue down this path. He realizes he needs to
cultivate his influence over his team members, rather than his power. He again turns
to research and explores several avenues of influence that could be of use to him in his
leadership role. Despite their flagging performance and cohesion, the team members
all like Ramon, which makes them more open to his ideas and suggestions. Ramon
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 314
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Power and Influence in Organizational Groups
Section 9.1
attempts to reengage the team members in their own process by informally discussing
their progress with them and soliciting ideas about how they should proceed. He then
directs them to set new, more realistic performance goals and commit to achieving them
together. Ramon understands that no one wants to feel like they are letting down the
group, so the session works to both reset the team member’s feeling of togetherness and
encourage members to follow through. Ramon also uses reciprocity to influence the team
by asking about and addressing any relevant needs team members have. Ramon’s team
members will feel he has given them something of value and are likely to respond in kind
by following through on their tasks.
Though the team continues to struggle for a few more months, Ramon’s plan to cultivate
his influence over his sources of power eventually pays off—the team members begin to
monitor their own work and attend to their tasks and activities because they want to.
Their problems with decreased productivity and cohesion eventually dissipate, and they
are able to achieve several of their goals.
Power and leadership—the study of their origins, dynamics, and influence in groups
and organizations—seem to be an ongoing source of fascination for practitioners and
academics alike. In Chapter 9, we examine power relations within groups, the different
perspectives on leadership, and contemporary constructs for sharing leadership. We
end the section with practical lessons in group leadership. We start by examining
power and influence in organizational groups.
9.1 Power and Influence in Organizational Groups
Power is the ability to influence behavior and events, overcome resistance, and move people
to act in ways they otherwise would not (Pfeffer, 1993; Kolb, 2011). Influence, a significant
factor in any description of power, is the capacity to affect the character, development,
attitudes, or behavior of people or processes. The two concepts are closely related, and at
first glance may seem identical. However, there is a fundamental difference between power
and influence that has a profound effect on the impact and expression of each.
A person in a position of power typically has authority over another person, whether he or
she chooses to impose it or not. For instance, your manager has the authority to assign activities and dictate what is (or isn’t) appropriate behavior in the workplace. An individual with
influence, on the other hand, can merely encourage others to change (French & Raven, 1959).
A close friend, for example, has no real authority over you but can still affect your opinions
and behavior. One’s influence can range from very faint to overwhelming. Within groups,
power and influence translate into the ability to:
•
•
•
•
instigate, abolish, or transform behaviors, actions, and norms;
direct group activities and goals;
inspire conformity and compliance; and
shape member attitudes regarding approval and acceptance (Harrell & Simpson,
2016; Scheepers, Ellemers, & Sassenberg, 2013).
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 315
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Power and Influence in Organizational Groups
Section 9.1
In this section, we examine the types of power that individuals and groups can wield, where
power comes from, and the basic avenues of influence group members experience and use.
We also examine the nature of power and ponder a universal question: Is it better to control
cooperation or inspire it?
The Accumulation of Power and Influence
Power can be wielded by individual members within groups or by the group as a collective.
Individuals can have power over fellow group members—for example, as a team leader
or a highly regarded expert—and they can accrue power or social standing through their
association with a particular group. Groups wield power through the coordinated actions of
their members and the impact of those actions on others. Groups can direct their power and
influence inward, upon particular members within the group, for example, when members
band together to collectively reward or punish the behavior of specific members. A group
majority may also exert power in the form of social pressure to get a group minority to
conform or comply with a specific attitude, behavior, or course of action.
Groups can also direct their power and influence outward to affect actions, behavior, and
attitudes outside of the group. In organizational groups, this is often part of their given task—
for example, when a team is asked to handle a significant problem, make a key decision,
or investigate and recommend a course of action such as marketing a new product. Like
individuals, groups can directly or indirectly exert outward influence via their positional and
personal power (Weber, 1968).
• Positional power is attached to a specific role or position assigned to an individual
or group. A lieutenant in the army, for instance, has the legitimate authority to
issue orders to soldiers of lower rank regardless of her character, leadership ability,
or skill. Similarly, a group facilitator is accorded a certain amount of respect and
authority to manage group interactions and encourage or curtail specific attitudes
and behaviors within a group. A top management group also holds positional
power, and as such has the authority to change and direct organizational policy and
practices.
• Personal power, by contrast, is attached to the inherent qualities and attributes of an
individual or group. Regardless of their position in a formal hierarchy, people who
demonstrate great character, likeability, or skill may acquire personal power over
those who recognize and appreciate such qualities. Successful or highly popular
groups may also exert influence by inspiring others to perform or behave in ways
that conform to perceived group principles, rules, or norms.
In acknowledgment of their positional or personal power, group members may be awarded
formal or informal status. This is why status can both increase power and be increased by
power. Next, we examine sources of power and influence.
Sources of Power and Influence
Now that we have a basic grasp of who holds power and why, let’s look at where power comes
from and the specific ways we influence each other. We’ll start by examining French and
Raven’s six sources of power.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 316
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Power and Influence in Organizational Groups
Section 9.1
Sources of Power
In two notable studies, French and Raven (French & Raven, 1959; Raven, 1965) identified six
sources of power typically found in organizations and groups: coercive, reward, legitimate,
referent, expert, and informational.
1. Coercive power refers to an individual’s ability to threaten the use of force to gain
compliance from another person. If a particularly intimidating foreman at a factory
prevented an employee from leaving his post to take a break under the threat of
force, this would constitute coercive power.
2. Reward power refers to the ability to control the rewards, including pay and
bonuses as well as recognition, that another individual receives. A manager has
reward power when she has the authority to decide which employees receive
a bonus and/or its amount. Conversely, when managers have formal authority
over their employees but lack the authority to determine their pay (such as
in bureaucratic organizations where pay is determined by factors other than
performance), the managers’ power is weakened unless they fortify it with another
source of power.
3. Legitimate power refers to authority assigned to an individual by custom and
law. In democratic societies, elected officials—such as the president of the United
States—have the legal authority to exert power within the limits of their office,
such as being commander in chief of the military. Individuals’ position in an
organization’s formal hierarchy, often indicated by their title or rank, constitutes
their legitimate power and is therefore a form of positional (as opposed to personal)
power.
4. Referent power is rooted in the ability to “borrow” authority, status, and influence
via affiliation or association with powerful individuals, groups, and organizations.
In colloquial terms, referent power is akin to “name dropping.” An employee who
invokes her personal connection with a high-ranking executive in order to solicit
a favor from another employee is using referent power. Similarly, a group member
uses referent power if he evokes his membership in a prestigious organization, such
as an Ivy League university or an exclusive club.
5. Expert power is authority based on one’s experience and special KSAs. An engineer
who fully understands the intricate design of a feature in a new product, such as the
Falcon wing doors of the Tesla Model X, possesses expert power. In today’s lowhierarchy organizations, such as the dot-coms that populate Silicon Valley, expert
power is becoming increasingly important. In such companies, expertise is more
important than hierarchical position, and one’s hierarchical position is increasingly
tied to one’s expertise. Elon Musk, founder and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, is well
known for hiring people who have demonstrated genius expertise in narrow fields,
regardless of their formal educational level. He is also known for firing engineers
who fail to answer his detailed technical questions (Vance, 2015). Because expertise
is independent of one’s formal position, it is a form of personal (as opposed to
positional) power.
6. Informational power refers to an individual’s ability to influence others through the
dissemination of knowledge. It is different from expert power in that the targets of
influence understand and process the information, which alters their behavior. Expert
power, by contrast, does not require others to understand the information that the
expert possesses—they need only value it. A doctor may exert expert power when
ordering a patient to follow a particular treatment without the patient necessarily
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 317
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Power and Influence in Organizational Groups
Section 9.1
understanding the diagnostic. The patient is therefore complying with the treatment
simply because he trusts the expertise of the doctor. By contrast, if an individual
decides to avoid fast food as a result of a campaign against obesity that clearly
explains its negative impact on health, that individual is influenced by informational
power.
French and Raven’s six sources of power represent an attempt to categorize the different
ways in which we recognize and respond to power. Likewise, there are specific ways in which
we exert and experience influence (Cialdini, 2009). We take a look at these next.
Avenues of Influence
Influential management researcher Robert Cialdini (2009) has identified six key avenues
through which one can influence another person: reciprocity, social proof, commitment and
consistency, apparent authority, liking, and scarcity value. These are known as Cialdini’s six
principles of influence:
1. Reciprocity refers to people’s tendency to repay in kind anything offered or
provided by another person, because they feel socially obligated to achieve a
mutual exchange of similar nature or value. This social norm is so universal that
it is considered a central property of human culture (Gouldner, 1960; Gachter &
Herrmann, 2009). The urge toward reciprocity is so strong that it can overpower
dislike. Members of the Hare Krishna religious group successfully leveraged this
fact beginning in the 1960s, when they used small gifts of courtesy and flowers
to garner donations even from people who promptly threw the flowers away in
disgust. In studying this phenomenon, Cialdini (2009) noted that this reaction was
so predictable that the Hare Krishnas would periodically collect their flowers from
nearby waste bins and reuse them to solicit donations from other passersby. The
concept is equally successful in commercial settings, where free samples and small
gifts like keychains, bags, or address labels elicit feelings of indebtedness that lead to
purchases down the line.
2. Social proof refers to people’s tendency to base their actions on those of others,
especially their peers. This is particularly common when an individual is uncertain
about which course of action to follow. We touched on this concept in Chapter
6, when discussing social influence. Recall the Asch study in which individuals
conformed to a group majority despite its clearly incorrect opinion. This is an
excellent example of social proof at work and its ability to influence how we perceive
and respond to the world around us.
3. Commitment and consistency refers to people’s tendency to avoid backing out of
deals. This is related to the desire to present an attractive and capable self-image.
Reneging on a deal creates a negative impression. In studying this phenomenon,
Cialdini (2009) noted that when individuals were asked whether they would vote
before an election, they all said yes—and most of them did in fact show up to vote.
However, when individuals were not asked ahead of time, a much smaller percentage
showed up at the polls. Therefore, getting individuals to commit to something is
a way to influence them to follow up on their commitment, especially when the
commitment is made in public.
4. Apparent authority refers to the general tendency to follow the lead of people in
authority positions or who have the attributes of authority, such as the appropriate
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 318
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Power and Influence in Organizational Groups
Section 9.1
clothing (such as a uniform), title (such as a PhD), or credibility (such as a letter
of recommendation from a respected individual). Security guards whose uniforms
mimic those worn by local police encourage people to regard them as having similar
authority. Likewise, a strong, clear voice stating “I’m a doctor” at an accident scene
immediately directs others to listen to that authority.
5. Liking refers to the basic fact that most people are more inclined to say yes to those
who are familiar and likable. People also favor those who are physically attractive,
similar to them, or who give them compliments. One application of this principle is
that by portraying oneself as similar in beliefs and attitudes to a target of influence,
one is more likely to succeed in an attempt to influence. This is why politicians often
advocate positions they believe to be popular among their supporters, rather than
positions they actually believe in themselves.
6. Finally, scarcity value relates to the economic principle of supply and demand: The
less there is of something, the more valuable it is presumed to be. Marketers use
this principle when they make it sound that a product offer is a one-time deal that
will expire soon. This makes it seem more desirable. You may have seen a store that
always seems to be having a going-out-of business sale; such a place is trying to
take advantage of the fact that many impulse buys are the results of “flash sales” or
“temporary markdowns.”
Cialdini’s six principles of influence are practical tools that can be used by anyone, regardless
of one’s power to exert influence over others. It is useful to be aware of these principles—and
mindful of how they can be used to influence our attitudes, behaviors, and actions, particularly
in response to others. The line between accepting influence because we choose to or because
we are forced to can be blurry, especially when dealing with perceived authority. In the next
section, we explore the nature of power and discuss the vital difference between control and
cooperation.
Concepts in Action: The Shocking Influence
of Apparent Authority
Merriam-Webster defines the word apparent as clearly manifest, or having the appearance of
reality (“Apparent,” 2016). Cultural conditioning teaches us that authority—and in particular
critical authority figures such as police officers or doctors—should be obeyed. But what
happens when an apparently critical authority figure directs us toward an attitude or behavior
that can have negative or dangerous consequences? Do we obey? Would you?
In a famous study on authority, Stanley Milgram (1963) told participants that he was studying
the impact of pain on memory. They were then put in charge of administering increasingly
painful electric shocks to a test subject. This person was, in fact, an associate of the experimenter and merely pretended to be in pain at the hands of the participants. Milgram found
that 65% of participants were willing to administer the maximum level of electric shock—
450 volts. This was despite the fact that such a shock level was clearly labeled as potentially
lethal and the test subject writhed in pain and eventually pretended to lose consciousness.
Why did participants do so? Milgram (1974) attributes it to a culturally conditioned tendency
to conform to apparent authority. While this is a prime factor, several of Cialdini’s avenues
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 319
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Power and Influence in Organizational Groups
Section 9.1
Concepts in Action: The Shocking Influence
of Apparent Authority (continued)
of influence were likely working together to produce the behavior observed in Milgram’s
experiment.
The apparent authority of the man conducting the study—a scientist wearing a white lab
coat—triggered participants’ culturally conditioned response to authority. This response
was strengthened by commitment and consistency because the participants had agreed to
obey the instructions given during the experiment. When faced with doubt over whether to
continue to deliver shocks, participants were influenced by a combination of social proof and
their expectations surrounding the apparent authority of the seemingly credible scientist who
was conducting the experiment. They assumed that if neither the scientist nor the majority of
their fellows obviously disapproved of the escalation of electrical current, then their behavior
was both acceptable and desired.
Critics of Milgram’s study suggested that participants may not have actually believed that the
shocks and their consequence were real, and this contributed to their decision to keep escalating the shocks. To test this theory, a similar experiment was performed using a puppy who
could not pretend to be shocked. Although participants expressed extreme emotional distress,
most continued to press the shock button until they hit maximum voltage (Sheridan & King,
1972).
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. What does this second experiment tell you about the different weights each avenue of
influence had on the participants’ choice to continue the shocks? Explain your answer
in terms of the knowledge you have gained regarding the six avenues of influence.
2. Given what you know about the principles of influence, do think you the participants
would be more likely to stop the escalation of shocks if they observed distaste or concern from a) their fellow participants, or b) the scientist conducting the study? Explain
your answer.
The Nature of Power: Control or Cooperation
Traditional views of power imply asymmetry between those who wield it and those who fall
under its influence. The former have power over the latter, and there is little or no expectation of influence going both ways. This runs counter to the ideals of freedom and democracy
that are at the heart of American values. Furthermore, it runs counter to recent attitudes
that are prevalent in contemporary organizations. Employee involvement and empowerment are becoming more popular in organizational culture and practice, and organizations
are increasingly adopting flattened hierarchies where expertise and talent trump positional
power and status. Power is shifting from conceptual frameworks based on control towards
those that feature cooperation. To understand why this shift is occurring, it is useful to distinguish between conformity and compliance.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 320
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Power and Influence in Organizational Groups
Section 9.1
Conformity Versus Compliance
Conformity—and its associated dynamics—is a big issue in group work. In Chapter 6 we
defined conformity and discussed its impact on various situations and processes. Here we
explore conformity as it applies to the nature of power. We tend to think of power as a force
that causes various changes in the behavior and actions of others—and this is true. However,
there are different methods by which power can enact these changes. In essence, power can
inspire conformity—or compliance.
In conformity, individuals accept influence because they choose to. Thus, conformity is
internally driven: It is affected by motivation and internalized norms, by the desire to belong
to a particular collectivity, and sometimes by whether the behavior appears meaningful. In
conformity, individuals’ internal feelings typically correspond to their external behavior, and
acceptance of influence occurs in both public and private behavior. Given that norms are the
unwritten rules of behavior, their assimilation is typically a process of conformity. An office
that has no formal dress code, for example, may still have certain norms in place that act as
unspoken guidelines that rule out certain types of clothing or styles. For example, people
are unlikely to wear yoga or sports gear even in offices with a casual dress code, despite
that fact that these styles have become common in nonprofessional settings. The key is that
no one is actually forcing the decision—people choose to conform because they either agree
with the appropriateness of whatever action or behavior is being suggested or expect it to be
beneficial in some way.
In compliance, on the other hand, individuals accept influence because they must. Compliance
is externally imposed, often by the promise or threat of strong rewards or punishments.
Internally, individuals may disagree with the mandate or feel uncomfortable about it; but
nonetheless, in public their behavior adjusts to the source of influence. Formal rules with
hard consequences tend to generate compliance. Employees of an organization that requires
a rigid dress code or uniforms, for example, must comply with this rule in order to remain
employed—whether or not they find their outfits comfortable or appealing. The key here
is that compliance does not require individuals’ acceptance or belief—just that they do it
regardless. This is an important distinction, because whereas conformity can foster lasting
changes, compliance only lasts as long as the associated consequences are an effective
deterrent. If getting fired is no longer a significant consequence, for example, an employee
who detests a company’s dress code will have no reason to continue to follow it.
Social pressure and the desire for acceptance can blur the line between conformity and
compliance, as people willingly conform to avoid rejection and other forms of social
punishment. However, these expectations are sometimes false, as in cases of pluralistic
ignorance, described in Chapter 6, where group members conform and/or comply with what
they falsely perceive are popular attitudes or behaviors because they fear the consequences
of going against an apparent group norm.
Several circumstances can increase the likelihood of compliant behavior:
• Lack of alternatives. Compliance is more likely when individuals believe they have
few or no alternatives regarding group selection. For example, an employee may feel
she has no choice regarding which groups—or group members—she must work
with, particularly if she fears losing respect or benefits if she requests a change.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 321
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Power and Influence in Organizational Groups
Section 9.1
• Group control over environment. Compliance is also more likely in an environment
where the group controls many or most domains of an individual’s life, such as in
the military. In these situations, the group or its leaders have control over member
rewards and punishments.
• Low status. Because status is often associated with power, compliance is more likely
among low-status group members, who feel they must comply with the demands of
those with greater power and influence (Clark, Clark, & Polborn, 2006).
Compliance is at the heart of traditional power relations wherein leaders exert control over
their followers with a very one-sided influence. As Table 9.1 outlines, however, there are some
major disadvantages of compliant relationships for both followers and leaders.
Table 9.1: Disadvantages of compliance
Disadvantage
Explanation
Surveillance
Typically, compliance requires surveillance in order to be effective. Leaders
or their representatives must carefully watch and correct members because
group members may resist influence in their more private behaviors.
Enforcement
Blowback
Decreased productivity
Diminished cohesion
Higher turnover
Compliance may require certain people to take on specialized roles, such
as foreman, to ensure that directives are carried out or deviant behavior is
squelched.
Group members may be disgruntled and as a result engage in sabotage.
Due to coercion attempts and enforcement, many group members may
become anxious. If anxiety levels due to coercion are high, this may interfere
with and lower productivity on group tasks.
Members’ identification and attachment with the group will decrease, which
can negatively influence performance.
If the opportunity presents itself, members may leave the group entirely for
another alternative.
Power relationships that are based predominantly on compliance often generate subjugation,
resistance, and alienation (Deutsch, 1973a). Distrust is common between leaders and
subordinates, and control is maintained only through constant scrutiny and enforcement.
This approach is unlikely to produce employee commitment or buy-in and has limited
practicality for positive group outcomes, particularly where cooperation or collaboration is
desired. While it takes more time and effort to bring about conformity than compliance, the
increased cohesion, autonomy, and buy-in that it generates offer substantial value. Behavior
modeling is an excellent way to foster conformity and has the added benefit of reinforcing
desired attitudes or behaviors in both those modeling and those adopting them. As teams
and teamwork values have become increasingly common in organizations, power relations
have moved from compliance to conformity. This has caused a related shift in the conceptual
frameworks that direct power relations in organizations. We look at these evolving paradigms
in the next section.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 322
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Section 9.1
Power and Influence in Organizational Groups
Evolving Paradigms for Power Relations
Over the past century, there has been a shift in attitudes about power relations that has
unlocked the rigid perception of power as control and reimagined it as a cooperative process.
Power as control is the traditional approach to power relations, in which X has some special
authority and influence over Y (Coleman & Voronov, 2003; French & Raven, 1959). The poweras-control paradigm can be traced to Robert Dahl’s (1969) perspective that power represents
our capacity to overcome resistance in others; the ability to move others into actions they
would not otherwise have chosen. This viewpoint presents power as both a potentially positive
mechanism for establishing and maintaining authority, order, and control, and a potentially
negative framework that enables coercion and abuse.
By contrast, the more recent paradigm of cooperative power emphasizes a noncompetitive
approach in which power is shared among cooperating parties, including subordinates
(Follett, 1973). Examples of cooperative power range from employee involvement initiatives
that foster awareness of and participation in organizational decision-making processes to
self-managed teams and team-based organizations. We discuss these in more detail later
in this chapter and in Chapter 10. For now, let’s focus on why organizations have found it
advantageous to shift toward cooperative power. Table 9.2 compares and contrasts the
different assumptions associated with power as control versus cooperative power.
Table 9.2: Power as control versus cooperative power
Aspect
Power-as-control approach
Cooperative-power approach
Amount of power
A finite amount of power exists in any
relationship (for example, the more
power held by X, the less is available
for Y).
Power can be created and enhanced
through mutually cooperative efforts.
Due to the finite nature of power in
any relationship, power relations are
inherently competitive.
Given the right conditions, people will
willingly share power with others.
Power relations
Power dynamics
Motivation
Power base
Power relations are consistently
unidirectional; influence moves from X
to Y.
Power relations are mutual,
interdependent, and bidirectional
(influence goes both ways).
A primary motivation for the use of
power is to increase that power.
X and Y can hold interdependent and
positively related goals for which
mutually satisfying outcomes can be
achieved.
Power is essentially based on control
through coercion.
Power can be based in harmonious
interrelations and mutual influence
(Coleman & Tjosvold, 2000).
Cooperative-power practices motivate participants to seek out and appreciate one another’s
abilities and contributions, foster resource exchanges and negotiation for mutual benefits,
and encourage and support member learning and development.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 323
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Perspectives on Leadership Theory
Section 9.2
Despite these significant advantages of cooperative power, the power-as-control model
remains popular as a classic approach to power relations; traditionally minded managers
still follow it today. However, the growing desirability and effectiveness of interorganizational
cooperation and teamwork is motivating an increasing number of organizations to move
beyond the traditional power-as-control paradigm and understand power as cooperative.
This changing attitude has enacted a similar evolution in perspective regarding the dynamics
of leadership.
9.2 Perspectives on Leadership Theory
Leadership has been defined as a process whereby an individual influences others to work
toward a common goal (Northouse, 1997). This definition contains four important elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Leadership is a process.
Leadership involves influence.
Leadership is a social interaction.
Leadership involves the pursuit of goals.
Thus, group leadership refers to the process of influencing group members toward collective,
interdependent goals and coordinating member behavior in pursuit of group goals. A key
point here is that although leaders can exercise and accrue power, leadership is primarily a
process of influence.
Leaders use various resources and a repertoire of styles—or recognizable and regular patterns
of behaviors—to exert influence. Sometimes influence flows asymmetrically in one direction—
from leaders to the group—as in the power-as-control model. Sometimes influence flows both
ways, or reciprocally, as in the cooperative-power model. Today leadership is considered to be
more effective when it inspires, rather than enforces, desired actions, attitudes, and behavior.
How leaders achieve this is a much-studied phenomenon. At the heart of this question lies a
particular fascination with what makes a good leader.
Despite more than a century of research, no one universal theory of leadership seems to be
universally accepted. Instead, several theories have been formulated that can be classified
into four broad perspectives, each of which emphasizes a different aspect of the phenomenon:
• The leader-centric perspective views leadership in relation to individual traits and
styles.
• The situation-centric perspective views leadership in relation to situational factors.
• The follower-centric perspective views leadership as a construct of follower beliefs
and actions.
• The interactional perspective views leadership as a construct of the leader’s effective
interaction with the situation and his or her followers.
Some of these perspectives stand alone, while others encompass several major theories on
leadership. We examine each these in the following sections.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 324
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Perspectives on Leadership Theory
Section 9.2
The Leader-Centric Perspective on Leadership
The leader-centric perspective assumes that leadership flows from specific leader
characteristics and behaviors. At the beginning of the 20th century, when scholars first tried
to theorize leadership, they naturally focused on leaders themselves. The word leadership is
based on the word leader, which implies that this phenomenon flows from the personality
and actions of exceptional people: leaders. Under the influence of personality theory, early
leadership scholars focused on leaders’ traits and personality, which gave birth to the trait
theory of leadership. Second, under the influence of behaviorism, they focused on leaders’
behavior and style, which gave birth to the style theory of leadership.
Trait Theory
Between 1920 and 1950 researchers hoped to discover how individual traits are connected
to leadership effectiveness. Traits describe the enduring characteristics or dispositions that
give rise to a person’s behaviors or behavior patterns. Nineteenth-century intellectual greats
such as Thomas Carlyle, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Francis Galton had already established and
rallied around the idea that history was driven by great men, and the “natural born leader”
concept seemed a logical basis for investigation (Vroom & Jago, 2007). According to the trait
theory of leadership, leaders naturally possess traits that set them apart from other people.
Researchers have identified nine major leadership traits (Bass, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Locke,
1996):
1. Drive: achievement, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative
2. Leadership motivation: socialized motivation (such as the desire to lead for the common good), personalized motivation (such as the desire for the perks associated
with leadership)
3. Participation: activity, sociability, cooperation, adaptability, humor
4. Honesty and integrity: truthfulness, straightforwardness, ethicality, moral standards
5. Self-confidence: self-esteem, positive self-image, self-assurance, self-efficacy
6. Personal abilities: intelligence, vitality, verbal agility, originality, critical
abilities
7. Expertise: knowledge of the business or the situation
8. Proven achievements: academic, business, sports, military, general culture
9. Status: positional, personal, social, popularity
According to the trait theory of leadership, the more of these nine traits an individual possesses, the more likely he or she is to emerge as a leader.
Despite its apparent practicality, the trait approach to leadership has had mixed results.
As researchers kept expanding the list of relevant traits, it became so long that it failed to
distinguish between leaders and nonleaders and included such traits as height, appearance,
race, and sex. Furthermore, famous counterexamples could be found for many of the traits
identified. For example, while height was identified as a possible leadership trait, Napoleon,
who was notoriously short, does not fit that trend. Eventually, at the end of the 1940s, after
a thorough review of the research literature, influential leadership scholar Ralph Stogdill
(1948) dealt a significant blow to the trait theory of leadership, concluding that individuals
do not become leaders by virtue of some combination of traits alone. This opened the avenue
for a new theory based on leadership style.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 325
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Perspectives on Leadership Theory
Section 9.2
Style Theory
As a reaction to the relative failure of the early studies on the trait approach, researchers
in the 1950s and 1960s began to consider the behavior of leaders, as opposed to their
traits. This led to the style theories of leadership, which examined a leader’s particular
manner of and approach to providing direction, motivating others, and implementing plans
(Davis & Newstrom, 1993). Different studies have essentially discovered two opposite
styles of leadership, given different labels at various times: the consideration/relationshiporientation/democratic style versus the initiating structure/task-orientation/autocratic
style (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Fleishman, 1953; Lewin & Lippitt, 1938). The consideration/
relationship-oriented/democratic style of leadership covers a wide variety of behaviors related
to the treatment of people, including showing concern for subordinates, looking out for their
welfare, acting in a friendly and supportive manner, building relationships with them, and
including them in decision making. The initiating structure/task-oriented/autocratic style
of leadership, by contrast, covers behaviors such as defining roles, guiding subordinates
toward the attainment of work-group goals, assigning work, paying attention to standards of
performance, emphasizing deadlines, and making decisions for followers.
One of the important questions that emerged from this research was whether one style was
more effective than the other. The findings were mixed. Some studies found that a democratic
style is associated with a higher productivity, others found an autocratic style to be associated
with higher productivity, while still others found no difference (Bass, 1990). Nevertheless,
available evidence seems to lean toward democratic leadership as more effective (Gastil,
1994). These mixed findings lead researchers to look at the importance of the situation in
determining leadership effectiveness.
The Situation-Centric Perspective on Leadership
The inability of the leader-centric perspectives to fully explain leadership phenomena gave rise
to the situation-centric perspective. This perspective assumes that leadership effectiveness
depends on its situational appropriateness. However, different theories disagree about what
dimensions of the situation matter most or which types of interactions are most effective.
Here we review the three major theories encompassed in this perspective.
Contingency Theory
Since style theories of leadership failed to identify one best style that was effective across
all situations, management researcher Fred Fiedler (1965, 1967) developed a contingency
theory in which situational conditions influence the effectiveness of a given style. Working off
the premise that leaders were either task oriented or relationship oriented, Fiedler studied
their effectiveness in various settings based on combinations of three situational variables
(Vroom & Jago, 2007):
1. Leader–member relations: the support and loyalty obtained from the work group,
with a positive to negative scale ranging from good to poor
2. Task structure: the clarity with which critical task components such as goals, methods, and standards of performance are defined, with a positive to negative scale
ranging from structured to unstructured
3. Position power: the degree of power bestowed by the organization to reward and punish subordinates, with a positive to negative scale ranging from strong to weak
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 326
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Section 9.2
Perspectives on Leadership Theory
Fiedler (1967) considered these variables to be key in determining the amount of situational
control available to leaders in various settings, and the orientation—relationship or task—
that would be most effective as a leadership style. According to Fiedler, situational control is
highest when all three variables are in the positive range, and it gets correspondingly lower as
the number of variables in the negative range increases. Table 9.3 outlines Fiedler’s findings
regarding the most effective leadership style for each combination of situational variables.
Table 9.3: Fielder’s contingency theory
Leader–member
relations
Task structure
Leader’s position
power
Most effective
leadership style
Good
Structured
Strong
Task oriented
Good
Unstructured
Strong
Task oriented
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Structured
Unstructured
Structured
Structured
Unstructured
Unstructured
Source: Adapted from Fiedler (1967).
Weak
Weak
Strong
Weak
Strong
Weak
Task oriented
Relationship oriented
Relationship oriented
Relationship oriented
Relationship oriented
Task oriented
To illustrate the theory, imagine that you are the newly appointed foreman of a group of 32
factory workers who perform very structured work on an assembly line. You are replacing a
much-loved foreman who was recently killed in car accident. Since you were recruited straight
out of your undergraduate program and have no prior experience with the organization,
your team views you with distrust (so your leader–member relations are poor). However,
you have high power because you are the boss and can distribute rewards and punishment
to your employees. Fiedler’s theory predicts that the most effective leadership style in this
situation would be relationship oriented. Contrast this example with that of a leader who
has worked for a long time with a group of employees who respect and like her. The task is
creative (therefore unstructured), and the leader’s position of power is high because she can
distribute rewards and punishment to her employees. In this case, Fiedler’s theory predicts
that the most effective leadership style would be task oriented.
The ability to predict the most effective leadership style for any given work situation would
seem to suggest that leaders should adapt their style as needed, but contingency theory holds
no provision for helping leaders develop this kind of stylistic flexibility. Fiedler assumed that
a manager’s behaviors and personal characteristics would be more difficult to change than
the work situation (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2001). Therefore, Fielder’s suggestions for
the practical application of this model centered on matching leaders (relationship versus task
oriented) with the types of situations in which their style will be the most effective or, failing
that, trying to adjust the situation by restructuring the situational variables to fit a leader’s
habitual style (Vroom & Jago, 2007). Other situational approaches to leadership assume that
leaders’ styles are flexible and that they should change their style depending on the situation.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 327
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Perspectives on Leadership Theory
Section 9.2
Situational Leadership
Situational leadership theory assumes that leaders can adopt different leadership styles
to adapt to differing situations and subordinate needs (Hersey et al., 2001). For this reason,
the theory has had wide appeal for managers because it increases their sense of flexibility
and control. There are two basic style behaviors associated with the theory: directive and
supportive. Directive behavior involves instructing and providing feedback on what tasks to
perform, how to perform them, and when. Supportive behavior focuses on relational aspects,
such as listening, encouraging, and supporting subordinates’ efforts at problem solving and
decision making. However, Hersey and Blanchard (2001) assert that these style behaviors
are not mutually exclusive and that leadership styles can be composed of various degrees
and combinations of directive and supportive behavior. They propose the following four
leadership styles, each most appropriate for a given situation:
1. Directing. This style is characterized by high directive and low supportive behaviors.
Directing is the most effective leadership style for subordinates with low competence for a task but high commitment to it (for example, a new and enthusiastic
salesperson). The subordinate has the enthusiasm but lacks the skills to be successful in the situation.
2. Coaching. This style is characterized by high directive and high supportive behaviors.
Coaching is most effective when subordinates have some competence for a task but
low commitment to it (for example, a relatively new salesperson who is feeling discouraged about missing sales targets). Here the subordinate lacks both the degree of
skill and commitment required to be successful in the situation.
3. Supporting. This style is characterized by low directive and high supportive behaviors. Supporting is most effective when subordinates have moderate competence for
a task but variable commitment to it (for example, an experienced salesperson who
is burned out on the job). In other words, the subordinate has the skills to be successful in the situation but lacks the commitment.
4. Delegating. This style is characterized by low directive and low supportive behaviors.
Delegating is most effective when subordinates have both high competence and high
commitment for the task (for example, an experienced and enthusiastic salesperson).
The subordinate requires little direction and support because he or she has both the
skills and enthusiasm to be successful in the situation.
Despite its popular appeal with managers, situational leadership theory has failed to receive
significant empirical support (Phillips, 1995). In an effort to resolve this issue, researchers
developed a third situational approach, known as path–goal theory.
Path–Goal Theory
Path–goal theory combines leadership with motivation theory, suggesting that leaders
motivate subordinates to achieve high performance by showing them the path to valued
goals or results. When the corresponding tasks have been performed and the goals reached,
rewards follow. The leader’s role is to show a clear path and help eliminate barriers to the
achievement of goals.
Path–goal theory incorporates its own variation on the directive and supportive leadership
styles and adds two others:
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 328
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Perspectives on Leadership Theory
Section 9.2
• Directive. This style involves telling subordinates what to do and is most appropriate
when subordinates are unsure about the task or when there is a lot of uncertainty in
the environment. For example, in a complex combat situation, soldiers will perform
best when given very specific commands by their field commander.
• Supportive. This style involves making work more pleasant for subordinates and
showing concern for them. It is most appropriate with subordinates who are
unsatisfied and have a high need for affiliation and a human touch and for repetitive,
mundane tasks. For instance, seasonal agricultural workers picking vegetables in
a field—a repetitive and mundane task—will perform better when their foreman
shows concern for them and finds ways to alleviate unpleasant work conditions such
as boredom or physical discomfort.
• Participative. This style involves consulting subordinates when making a decision. It
is most appropriate with subordinates who are autonomous and need control and
clarity and for ambiguous and unstructured tasks. For instance, a hospital manager
would do well to consult doctors and nurses when making important changes to
hospital procedures, because these employees are highly trained professionals who
are used to controlling their work and are likely to resist an authoritative leadership
style.
• Achievement oriented. This style involves setting challenging goals for subordinates.
It is most appropriate with subordinates who have high expectations and a need
to excel and for complex, challenging, and ambiguous tasks. For example, Elon
Musk obtains extraordinary results from his aerospace engineers at SpaceX, the
extraordinarily successful space rocket company, by assigning them extremely
challenging goals. For instance, he asked his team to design rockets whose lower
stages can land back on a small platform in the ocean after launch, so they can be
reused and save money. As of mid-2016 the company had already done it three
times, which had never been achieved before.
Like Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model, path–goal theory considers that
a leader’ style is flexible and can be adapted to varying situations. However, in addition to
considering characteristics of the subordinate as contingency factors, path–goal theory also
considers task attributes such as complexity, required level of interdependence, and working
conditions.
Next, we examine a perspective that views leadership as follower based.
The Follower-Centric Perspective on Leadership
In the 1970s business theorist Jeffrey Pfeffer (1977) articulated a provocative reversal of
perspective on leadership: What if the phenomenon of leadership had more to do with followers
than with leaders? This question gave way to the follower-centric perspective, which
assumes that leadership has little to do with the leader’s traits or actions but is attributed to
leaders by their followers. Pfeffer’s idea was rooted in his observation that research had failed
to demonstrate that leaders have a real impact on their organizations (Hall, 1974; Lieberson
& O’Connor, 1972). Pfeffer’s theory put the whole concept of leadership in doubt and asserted
that it may be an illusion. Pfeffer suggested that the phenomenon of leadership has more to
do with the gullibility of followers than the exceptional qualities of leaders. His argument
is based on attribution theory, a well-researched psychological theory that has shown that
people tend to simplify reality when they make causal inferences (Kelley, 1971).
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 329
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Perspectives on Leadership Theory
Section 9.2
According to attribution theory, people have a tendency to analyze circumstances and
events to make causal inferences, matching cause to effect as they experience the world
around them. They do so in order to make predictions about their environment and interactions, giving them some measure of control over their own experience. For example, most
people take note of behaviors or practices that receive either positive or negative feedback
from superiors. This is part of the assimilation process new employees or group members
undergo when they join a new group or organization; doing so instills predictable expectations for praise or censure that foster a sense of confidence and control.
The problem is that reality is tremendously complex; because of this, attribution judgments tend
to be based on a simplified perception of situations
and events. In matching cause to effect, people tend
to focus their attention on salient people, objects,
or circumstances, those that noticeably stand out or
contrast with other elements in the environment.
Consequently, people can connect events to factors
that are not really causal, simply because they were
highly noticeable (Taylor & Fiske, 1978). This type
of thinking was behind ancient superstitions connecting cosmic events like comets or eclipses with
similarly dramatic events such as an unseasonable
drought or the birth or death of a public figure.
This led Pfeffer to conclude that because leaders
are highly visible, followers assume that leaders
are the cause of organizational performance, when
they have in fact a very modest influence on it. From
this perspective, the power and influence ascribed
to leaders could be viewed as stemming more from
follower beliefs than any specific leadership traits or
styles.
GlobalP/iStock/Thinkstock
The superstition connecting black cats
with bad luck is based on our tendency
to focus on salient factors when
searching for cause and effect.
Pfeffer nonetheless recognized that leaders have
an important role to play in the leadership process, if only in a symbolic sense. According to
Pfeffer, effective leaders are those who successfully associate themselves with positive organizational outcomes, pretending they had greater influence on them than they actually had.
They divest themselves from negative outcomes, blaming them on the system or someone else.
Consequently, Pfeffer (1981) viewed leadership primarily as a process of diplomacy, politic
actions, and ability to present oneself to best advantage. While these are important aspects of
leadership, Pfeffer’s viewpoint is too limited a theory to hold up on its own, as it discounts the
more practical aspects of leadership, such as organization, planning, and motivating employees (Thomas, 1988). Pfeffer’s work did offer some significant contributions to leadership theory, however, by establishing that (a) leadership involves managing both real and symbolic
actions and (b) that leadership is a joint process involving both leaders and followers. Just
as the situation-centric perspective established that leadership couldn’t be understood when
viewed as independent from the situation in which it is enacted, the follower-centric perspective highlighted the impact of follower beliefs and actions within the leadership process.
Together, these concepts inspired the most complex and complete perspective on leadership
to date: the interactional perspective.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 330
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Perspectives on Leadership Theory
Section 9.2
The Interactional Perspective on Leadership
While all of the approaches described thus far cast some interesting light on leadership, the
fact that they had neither been integrated together nor received sufficient empirical support
to stand alone led to the development of two new—and nearly identical (Conger & Kanungo,
1987)—theories: charismatic and transformational leadership. Together, they form the interactional perspective on leadership, which considers leadership to be a complex phenomenon of social influence explained by the interaction between situational factors and the
characteristics, behaviors, and beliefs of both leaders and followers. Charismatic and transformational leadership became and remain the most influential leadership theories today.
Charismatic leaders influence their followers by motivating them to an extraordinary extent.
They do so through at least four mechanisms:
1.
2.
3.
4.
They change their followers’ perceptions of the nature of work itself.
They offer an appealing future vision.
They develop a deep collective identity among followers.
They heighten both individual and collective self-efficacy, which is the belief that one
has the capabilities to perform in a certain manner or attain certain goals (Shamir,
House, & Arthur, 1993).
Steve Jobs is a perfect example of a charismatic leader. He motivated employees by creating
a cohesive organizational identity that permeated every aspect of his organization. Jobs had
a rigid design aesthetic that influenced his organization’s culture, practices, and working
environment with a driving consistency and attention to detail that was both an incredibly
demanding and stabilizing leadership influence. Jobs’s performance expectations could be
hard to meet, but they were always expressed with clarity and determination—elements that
could cause self-doubt in employees as they struggled to carry out his plans. However, they
ultimately led to an increase in both individual and collective efficacy as goals were effectively
accomplished (Isaacson, 2011). Jobs offered an appealing vision of the future that changed
employees’ perception of their work and transformed his personal dreams of changing the
world into a collective company goal that centered on technology innovation (Snell, 2011). As
one journalist eloquently put it, many people believe that Steve Jobs’s greatest creation was
not any one Apple product, but the company itself (Gruber, 2011).
Similarly, transformational leaders fundamentally change their followers’ perceptions,
expectations, and beliefs by:
• heightening their followers’ awareness of the importance and value of designated
goals and the means to achieve them;
• inducing followers to transcend their self-interests for the good of the collective and
its goals; and
• stimulating and meeting their followers’ higher order needs through the leadership
process and the mission (Bass, 1985).
The term transformational is chosen in contrast to transactional leadership. While in transactional leadership followers exchange their services for rewards distributed by the leader,
transformational leaders add something to the social exchange process so that the end result
of the interaction far exceeds a simple transactional exchange (Burns, 1978).
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 331
8/19/16 9:33 AM
Perspectives on Leadership Theory
Section 9.2
Both theories emphasize the notion that leaders transform and elevate the consciousness of
their followers, thereby building a meaningful, cohesive group identity. As they do so, their
own awareness is also transformed and elevated. Vision is one of the most important
instruments through which charismatic and transformational leadership occurs. Vision
refers to the fundamental mythic-like stories that create meaning out of chaos (Mumford &
Strange, 2002). By articulating a vision, charismatic and transformational leaders reformulate
both their own worldview and that of their followers, so a new meaning and a new collective
mission emerge. Charismatic and transformational leaders have to be very good storytellers
and communicators with high verbal abilities, because the stories they tell must be convincing
(Gardner & Avolio, 1998). They also need to have an intimate knowledge of their followers
and their culture (organizational and national) so that the vision they articulate is compatible
with them, yet more meaningful and motivating. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream”
speech represents a great example of transformational leadership. In the context of the civil
rights movement, which called for a radical change in American society to end racism and
discrimination, King’s speech articulated in clear and poetic terms a new vision for America,
at once consistent with its most profound ideals and very different from its history of
segregation and racism. King was a transformational leader. His speeches gave voice to
millions, motivated them, and galvanized change.
The interactional perspective of leadership combines aspects of the other
perspectives we’ve examined. It is
consistent with the follower-centric
perspective on leadership, which
emphasizes the need for leaders to be
good actors and engage in symbolic
actions. Nonetheless, it differs in that
it assumes that symbolic actions have
a real and powerful effect on followers, and through them, on the bottom
line. It is consistent with the leadercentric perspective because certain
traits—such as high emotional intelSuperStock
ligence, authenticity, and dramaturgiDr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a transformational
cal and verbal abilities—help leaders
leader who elevated the consciousness of his
be charismatic and transformational.
followers through his speeches.
Instead of assuming that leadership
resides in these traits, however, leadership is viewed as a process of social influence. Finally, the interactional perspective is consistent with the situation-centric perspective on leadership because it considers that the effect of
a vision depends on the worldview of followers and on the situation.
Next, we take a look at how the concepts we’ve discussed so far come together for leaders in
contemporary organizations.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 332
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Leading in Contemporary Organizations
Section 9.3
9.3 Leading in Contemporary Organizations
One of the clearest trends in the study and practice of power is an evolution toward
cooperative-power and leadership practices. This does not mean that leaders and bosses
do not have an important role to play in groups. The roles of both traditional leaders and
of group members have simply changed. They now incorporate concepts and practices that
foster power sharing and distribute leadership responsibilities and roles among various
personnel. The shift toward cooperative power can traced to the continuing growth of the
human relations movement in the 1970s and the introduction of self-managing teams and
their subsequent success in various settings across the world throughout the 1980s (Follett,
1973; Strauss & Hammer, 1987). As outlined in Chapter 1, the improvements to process and
productivity attributed to the use of these early teams inspired a revolution of organizational
culture and process that led to the permeation of teams, teamwork values, and cooperativepower and leadership practices in organizations today. We see these changes expressed most
clearly by three key elements of contemporary organizations: process, management practices,
and structure. The following sections examine each of these in turn.
Changes in Organizational Process
The proliferation of teams as the basic unit of operation is perhaps the single most dramatic
change in organizational process to occur as a result of the shift in power and leadership
practices. However, the permeation of team concepts and culture has given rise to some other
significant changes as well, the most prevalent of these being organizational focus on fostering
teamwork values and employee involvement.
Teamwork Values for Today’s Organizations
Teamwork values—expressed as focus on generating a cohesive identity, commitment to a
common purpose and good, and working within a climate of cooperation—can be applied in
any work setting, including those that do not actively support regular teams. As noted in our
earlier example of Steve Jobs’s leadership at Apple, contemporary organizations recognize
the value of creating a cohesive identity around which employees can rally their commitment,
loyalty, and vision. Fostering a climate of cooperation throughout an organization offers
significant benefits as well.
Cooperation is integral to organizational success and employee satisfaction (Fieschi, 2003;
West, Tjosvold, & Smith, 2003). A climate of cooperation generates a working environment
that fosters learning and knowledge sharing, process improvement, supportive behaviors,
and constructive feedback, conflict, and competition. The combination of all of these increases
employee productivity, morale, and effectiveness across the board. Implementing teamwork
values at the management level leads employees to become involved in organizational
strategy and decision making.
The Movement Toward Employee Involvement
Employee involvement is a catchphrase that encompasses organizational initiatives and
practices that enable cross-hierarchical exchange of information and influence within the
organization (Cox, Marchington, & Suter, 2009). In most cases this translates as on- and
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 333
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Leading in Contemporary Organizations
Section 9.3
offline events and forums that keep employees informed on organizational strategy and
needs, which allows them to discuss relevant ideas and information and ask questions and
voice opinions regarding strategic planning and decision making. In practice, this process can
take many forms:
• During his highly successful tenure as CEO of General Electric from 1981 to 2001,
Jack Welch instituted a now famous employee involvement practice dubbed the “GE
Workout,” a town hall meeting–style approach to airing organizational issues and
problems that are then solved collaboratively by the subordinates and managers
who are directly involved (Schaninger, Harris, & Niebuhr, 1999).
• Quality circles are another employee involvement practice that involve a parallel
team made up of coworkers in related areas who are tasked with investigating issues
that pertain to specific work processes or problems and suggesting improvements
or solutions to management (Pereira & Osborn, 2007). Quality circles can search
out and discuss potential solutions for problems in the organizational process
or employee–management relations by canvasing employees from particular
organizational areas. They can also be assigned to special projects, such as
improving a specific manufacturing process or investigating specific complaints
regarding employee work conditions.
• The Cisco System’s Idea Zone wiki described in Chapter 8 is another form of
employee involvement. It allows employees to exchange ideas and concepts for new
products, business units, and ways to use existing products, all aimed at increasing
employee involvement in organizational strategy and decision making (Samker &
Bouchard, 2009).
Employee involvement builds employee commitment, buy-in, and accountability to the
company. It increases employees’ capacity for responsibility and autonomy in work processes
and activities and enhances organizational function via collaborative problem solving and
decision making (Amah & Ahiauzu, 2013). As such, employee involvement is another valuable
dimension of organizational culture and process that has resulted from the shift toward
cooperative-power and leadership practices. Next, we examine major changes in management
practices, centered on the concept of employee empowerment.
Changes in Management Practices
Cooperative power and shared leadership require nontraditional management practices that
enable employees to take on some of the leadership roles and responsibilities classically
held by external managers and leaders. This involves management practices geared toward
developing and enabling employee empowerment, as well as the practical management of
self-managing teams. Let’s look at how contemporary managers lead through empowerment.
Leading Through Empowerment
Although employees can enjoy various levels of empowerment on different projects or teams,
empowerment is not a one-time event. It is an ongoing process through which leaders share
their power with their followers and train them to self-lead and lead others. Empowerment
behaviors, or leadership activities directed at the development of subordinates’ selfmanagement skills (Pearce & Conger, 2003), are for the most part developmental and person
oriented. These include:
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 334
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Leading in Contemporary Organizations
Section 9.3
• empowering leadership styles (such as participative, consultative, and facilitative);
and
• specific behaviors aimed at enhancing team member development and selfmanagement capacity (such as coaching, mutual performance monitoring, and
feedback activities) (Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, 2006).
Regardless of the specific level and structure of team empowerment, empowerment
behaviors promote team flexibility and learning, which facilitate effective team processes and
performance outcomes (Burke et al., 2006; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005; Swezey & Salas, 1992).
Leaders empower us mainly by reminding us that we can empower ourselves.
Self-empowerment is a natural phenomenon. All people require a certain level of perceived
autonomy to stay motivated and preserve their psychological well-being. No matter what
autonomy level a particular position holds, virtually all jobs entail emergent tasks that
employees can to some extent redefine (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). Additionally, most
employees further enrich their sense of self-direction and motivation by noticing or embedding
intrinsic rewards within their task structures (Manz & Sims, 2001; Neck & Houghton, 2006).
A customer service representative, for example, may feel good about helping and satisfying
customers, and count that as an additional reward beyond managerial praise or salary.
Similarly, members of an engineering or product development team may find the problemsolving and design process intrinsically rewarding in terms of personal satisfaction related to
meeting challenges and problem solving.
The desire to do work that is meaningful is a major driver of self-empowering behaviors—
such as enriching duties to provide more personal meaning to their accomplishment, setting
goals and consequences for ourselves, and focusing on intrinsic rewards—that increase selfmotivation and perceived autonomy, job satisfaction, and commitment to quality. Wrzesniewski
and Dutton’s (2001) study on menial workers, for example, revealed that many tended to
enlarge their duties and enrich them by injecting personal meaning in their accomplishment.
Managers often list self-starter, action oriented, and persistence as desirable employee traits
(Frese & Fay, 2001; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999), and research has found that individuals
with these qualities tend to “spontaneously create or mold situations in which they work to
intrinsically motivate themselves for performance” (Millikin et al., 2010, p. 690). People do
this by setting private goals, such as accomplishing a certain amount of work in a specific
time period or by envisioning their activities as important to others in some significant
way. Encouraging and even training employees to discover and craft intrinsic motivation for
everyday tasks fosters their capacity for self-direction (Stewart, Carson, & Cardy, 1996).
Two commonly held assumptions support the idea that self-empowerment is a major
component in leading and managing others, as well as in effective self-management:
1. Team members must learn to lead themselves before they can effectively influence
and lead other team members (Houghton, Neck, & Manz, 2003a, 2003b).
2. Self-leading individuals are the basic building blocks of self-managing teams (Neck,
Stewart, & Manz, 1996).
As we discussed in Chapter 1, self-managed or empowered teams were a critical element in
the rise of teams in organizations and have become a staple of organizational productivity
and success (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Since their
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 335
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Leading in Contemporary Organizations
Section 9.3
introduction as an organizational work unit, self-managing teams have been a continuously
developing concept, as organizations envision new variations on the roles and responsibilities
of team members, external managers and leaders, and varying degrees and types of
empowerment. Let’s look at how management practices have evolved to encompass selfmanaged teams.
Self-Managed Teams
A self-managed team is a group of employees that is responsible and accountable for all
or most aspects of producing a product or delivering a service (Yeatts & Hyten, 1998). Selfmanaged teamwork holds distinct advantages:
• Self-regulating team members are typically better at accomplishing individual and
collaborative endeavors (Houghton et al., 2003a; Manz & Sims, 2001).
• Taking autonomous actions and assuming ownership of collective outcomes builds
intrinsic motivation to self-monitor and regulate behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 1975;
Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Millikin et al., 2010) and deal constructively with the
inevitable setbacks and frustrations of interdependent performance (Kanfer &
Heggestad, 1997).
• By sharing or distributing leadership roles and responsibilities among team
members, managers are able to take a broader focus. This includes managing several
teams simultaneously and engaging in cooperative-power relations that support and
facilitate effective teamwork.
• Empowered teams are able to adapt more quickly to changing conditions, which
enhances team flexibility, effectiveness, and the of quality decision making in
complex, dynamic environments as well as those that require rapid or continuous
problem solving.
Despite proven advantages and the popularity of the empowered teamwork concept, there
are drawbacks. First, there is a distinct lack of managerial understanding and organizational
training on how to:
• empower existing teams,
• motivate self-directive and empowering behaviors in employees, and
• implement and manage empowered teams.
Additionally, one of the most common and significant areas of confusion lies in the division
and distribution of leadership and management responsibilities and roles. People are often
confused by the fundamental question of who leads a self-managed team, because leading
these teams involves cooperative-power and leadership activities that go beyond traditional
management practices.
Leading a Self-Managed Team
Most self-managed teams engage in cooperative management practices in which both internal
and external leaders work toward the good of the team. Leading a self-managed team requires
a nontraditional approach to leadership (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Manz & Sims, 2001).
This role generally falls to an external team leader, supervisor, or project manager whose
activities and actions help direct the team. External team leaders often lead several teams
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 336
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Leading in Contemporary Organizations
Section 9.3
simultaneously, empowering team members with significant levels of autonomy over team
decisions and actions. This empowerment results in a significant lack of the legitimate control
associated with more traditional leadership approaches. For this reason, the role of external
team leader is correspondingly more ambiguous, demanding, and complex than traditional
leadership roles (Beyerlein, Johnson, & Beyerlein, 1997; Hackman, 1986). Managers who
have previous, especially longtime, experience in more traditional leadership roles often find
sharing leadership, and trusting in team members’ competency to make their own decisions,
to be the most difficult aspect of making this paradigm shift (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003).
As we have learned, power relations and influence enacted through employee recognition,
rewards, and motivation (Yukl , 1989) traditionally flow coercively from the top down. Yet
the cooperative leadership engaged in by external leaders and empowered teams calls for
a more egalitarian approach. Instead of issuing demands, external team leaders engage in a
more consultative, facilitative role wherein the leader’s ability to promote knowledge sharing,
constructive listening, and dialogue and to provide relevant and accepted advice more closely
resembles a reciprocal, bottom-up approach (Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, 1989; Druskat
& Wheeler, 2003).
This cooperative style of external leadership is typically most effective when offering indirect
influence. Manz and Sims (1987) couched this hands-off style of consultative leadership in
terms of the six most commonly used encouraging behaviors, wherein external team leaders encourage and facilitate the development of team members’ capacity to self-lead:
1. Self-expectation. The leader encourages group members to have high expectations
for group performance and their contributions to group efforts.
2. Self-goal setting. The leader encourages group members to actively participate in
setting performance goals that are personally meaningful.
3. Self-observation and assessment. The leader encourages group members to maintain
awareness of, monitor, and evaluate their own performance.
4. Self-criticism. The leader encourages group members to engage in constructive selfcriticism and be accountable for group tasks and goals.
5. Self-reinforcement. The leader encourages group members to be supportive and
reinforce effective group functioning and process with positive reactions and praise.
6. Self-rehearsal. The leader encourages group members to think through activities
before actually engaging them in performance.
Another aspect of external leadership in empowered team settings involves providing a
buffer between external forces and the team. Positioned at the boundary between teams and
the organization, external team leaders represent a strategic link between members and the
organizational resources and systems that support them (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). External
leaders effectively serve as team ambassadors by lobbying for resources, protecting the team
from external pressure, and garnering outside support on behalf of the team. As part of
their function as a buffer, external team leaders build relationships both inside and outside
of their jurisdiction. This provides a two-way street that, when managed effectively, screens
interaction so that the parties on each side get what they need for constructive performance,
while neither has to deal with distracting, irrelevant, or potentially dysfunctional elements.
Next, we examine the changes in organizational structure that have occurred as a result of
contemporary cooperative-power and leadership practices.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 337
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Leading in Contemporary Organizations
Section 9.3
Changes in Organizational Structure
A shift from traditional to cooperative power and leadership cannot be accomplished without
some radical changes to organizational culture and structure. As we will discuss in Chapter
10, true organizational change cannot be accomplished without comprehensive support
across all levels of the organization. While it is possible to create and profit from employee
empowerment and self-managed teams without a wholesale organizational revolution,
achieving long-term effectiveness and high performance will entail significant structural
change if copacetic systems are not already in place.
Supporting Employee Empowerment
Silver, Randolph, and Seibert’s (2006) comparison of effective versus stalled empowerment
strategies revealed nine essential principles for creating and sustaining employee
empowerment in contemporary organizations:
1. Clarify the expectations surrounding empowerment and use these to develop a broad
change strategy in which empowerment is an important component but not the sole
end product. Remember that employee empowerment is the means to an end—in
this case, to benefits such as enhanced commitment and productivity—not the end
in itself. Define the actual outcomes and improvements that are desired and set goals
in multiple areas that empowerment can enhance, such as leadership, customer
service, and performance effectiveness.
2. Get expert help to initiate the empowerment process and to achieve key progress
points in it. External experts are unhindered by preexisting organizational culture,
procedure, and norms. They can thus more easily take and share an objective view
and help with the initial clarification of expectations, responsibilities, and roles
during the strategy-building process. They can also provide training and feedback at
critical points in the cycle.
3. Change begins at the top. Senior management must be committed to implementing
and modeling both training and behavioral changes. The entire senior management
team should be involved in making strategy and modeling behavior from the very
beginning. If the visionary leader is then lost, the rest of the team can continue
to provide the commitment and modeling necessary to sustain change. Senior
managers should be encouraged to develop personal action plans and establish
baseline measures and improvement goals for the organization.
4. Train comprehensively. Training for both managers and employees should
encompass the reasons behind and expectations for the change strategy. It
should cover key principles, practices of empowerment, and the new behaviors,
responsibilities, and skills needed to effect and sustain the change.
5. Solicit and encourage employee feedback and suggestions. Senior team members
and managers should routinely meet and dialogue with employee groups to share
input, discuss process, problem solve emerging issues, and collaborate on ongoing
expectations and needs for change at all levels.
6. Generate organizational knowledge and learning. Share individual and group
knowledge gained through experience throughout the change process, as well as
successes, failures, and innovative practices. This is an excellent opportunity to
combine empowerment with employee involvement practices, such as setting “town
meeting” discussions or implementing an organizational wiki share space to help
generate and share organizational knowledge.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 338
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Leading in Contemporary Organizations
Section 9.3
7. Leverage the helpful aspects of existing organizational culture and institute new
practices that support empowerment behaviors and change strategy. Sharing
knowledge, mutually monitoring performance and offering feedback, being open
to disagreement, discussing failures as constructive problem-solving tactics, taking
ownership for failures or mistakes, and striving for mutual accountability are all
major assets to sustaining empowerment and organizational change. Cultures that
have already emphasized teamwork values will have an enormous advantage, as
most of these potential assets are part and parcel with the values and practices
associated with teamwork and maintaining a climate of cooperation.
8. Motivate and commit midlevel management to being actively involved. Although
change begins at the top, it is largely implemented and sustained through secondand third-level management, which is better placed to lead employees at all levels
and is typically most knowledgeable about emerging issues and areas that need
change.
9. Recycle and revise. Training, implementing, and assessing empowerment behaviors
and change strategy represents a continuous evolution, one that involves ongoing
learning about, adapting, and revising both preexisting and newly implemented
behaviors and practices.
Source: Adapted from Silver, S., Randolph, W. A., & Seibert, S. (2006). Implementing and sustaining empowerment: Lessons learned
from comparison of a for-profit and a nonprofit organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(1), 47–58.
Structuring for Cooperative Power
Structuring an organization for cooperative-power and leadership practices often entails
flattening traditional organizational hierarchies and aligning organizational systems and
structure to effectively support teams. In some cases this can mean embarking on an entirely
new method of organizing employees and business processes within the company. This is
exemplified by an organizational change experiment that involved holacracy undertaken at
Zappos, a highly successful dot-com that pioneered online shoe selling. Instigated by serial
entrepreneur Tony Hsieh, holacracy represents a particular take on self-managed teams and
empowerment that is based on distributed leadership.
Holacracy is an experimental organizational model that removes power from management
hierarchies, distributing it across clear roles that can be executed autonomously, without
a micromanaging boss (Robertson, 2007). This idea grew out of the attempt to formalize
the type of culture that typically develops in innovative dot-coms and to maintain it as the
company grows, thus preventing the appearance of a stifling bureaucracy. In actuality, work
is more structured within a holacracy than in a conventional company, just differently so.
Teams break up work according to a clear set of rules and processes, and member roles,
responsibilities, and associated expectations are also clearly defined.
There are several key tenets that sum up the concept of holacracy:
• Roles are defined around work, rather than people. In a holacracy, roles replace
job descriptions. Team members fulfill multiple roles and change roles as the work
changes.
• Authority is distributed among team members, rather than delegated by bosses.
This allows the organization of work to change rapidly through numerous, small
iterations, rather than through infrequent, big organizational changes.
• Finally, holacracy intends to replace office politics with transparent rules accessible
to everyone.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 339
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Chapter 9 Summary and Resources
The organizational work process naturally brings about tensions among people and roles.
Rather than being seen as undesirable, holacracy views these tensions as unavoidable and as
opportunities to improve. Smaller tensions can be resolved through tactical meetings that
help synchronize the actions of the team and determine subsequent actions. When tensions
grow or become recurrent, governance meetings are called to change the role structure in
place. This brings about continuous change and helps improve the organization.
Even though Zappos was already an
unconventional, dynamic dot-com, it
wasn’t easy to implement holacracy
(Greenfield, 2015). The organization underwent a massive cultural
change, which included eliminating positions of authority that come
with the perks of power and higher
salaries. It also produced confusion about who was responsible for
what (Lam, 2016). Zappos offered all
employees who did not wish to adopt
holacracy the option to leave the
company with a generous 3-month
James Leynse/Corbis via Getty Images
severance package, and about 18% of In holocratic organizations, like Zappos, the powers
Zappos employees took the company traditionally reserved for executives and managers
up on this offer (Gelles, 2016; Lam, are spread across all employees. Holocracy essentially
2016). While holacracy is still thriv- flattens the traditional organizational hierarchy.
ing at Zappos, the jury is still out on
its effectiveness, and it has not yet been normalized as an organizational practice. Aligning
organizational systems to support teamwork—a process called team-based organizing—is
a far more popular alternative, and one that has been proved effective. Chapter 10 examines
this process in depth and further discusses organizational change, learning, and innovation.
Chapter 9 Summary and Resources
Power and influence are potent elements, and both leaders and followers should be mindful
of related positive and negative effects and consequences. Leadership is most effective
when it engages people to act cooperatively and share ownership over their attitudes and
actions. Cooperative-power and leadership practices have increasingly become the norm in
contemporary organizations, as teams and teamwork values have proved effective vehicles
for organizational growth, productivity, and innovation. In the next chapter, we examine the
profound connection between teams and the organization in which they are embedded, and
the contemporary shift toward team-based organizations.
Chapter Summary
•
•
The distinct sources of power by which we can affect others include coercive, reward,
legitimate, referent, expert, and informational power.
The ways in which we can be influenced include reciprocity, commitment and
consistency, social proof, apparent authority, liking, and scarcity value.
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 340
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Chapter 9 Summary and Resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
In conformity, individuals accept influence because they want to. In compliance,
individuals accept influence because they must. The concepts and behaviors of conformity and compliance correlate to two nearly opposite power paradigms: cooperative power and power as control.
While the power-as-control model of leadership is asymmetric, the cooperativepower model of group leadership emphasizes reciprocal properties, such as
exchange and negotiation.
Although there are many perspectives on leadership, contemporary experts tend to
agree that effective leadership should inspire more conformity than compliance, and
work within cooperative-power practices.
Organizational process changes geared toward cooperative-power and leadership
practices include using teams as a basic work unit, focusing on teamwork values,
and implementing strategies for employee involvement.
Changes in management practices geared toward cooperative-power and leadership
practices include developing and enabling employee empowerment and managing
self-managing teams in a practical way.
Changes in organizational structure geared toward cooperative power and
leadership include developing an organizational culture and systems that support
employee empowerment, using cooperative-power practices, and adopting teams
and teamwork values throughout the organization.
Posttest
1. Compliance behaviors are more likely to occur __________.
a. among high-status members
b. in groups with low cohesion
c. when choice of groups is limited
d. in the absence of significant consequences
2. Pfeffer’s follower-centric perspective significantly impacted leadership theory and
practice by establishing the idea that leadership involves all of the following EXCEPT
__________.
a. associating oneself with negative outcomes
b. the actions and influence of both leaders and followers
c. managing both real and symbolic actions
d. assigning power and recognition to salient individuals
3. The context within which teams function is complex; most empowered teams
__________.
a. do not need an external leader to weigh them down
b. perform best under an autocratic leadership structure
c. engage in cooperative management practices
d. do not perform well in organizational settings
4. Managing an empowered team requires all of the following, EXCEPT __________.
a. managers’ acceptance of shared leadership
b. a nontraditional management approach
c. a consultative, facilitative leadership role
d. previous experience in traditional leadership roles
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 341
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Chapter 9 Summary and Resources
5. __________ is based on our association or affiliation with others.
a. Cooperative power
b. Referent power
c. Apparent authority
d. Self-empowerment
6. Leadership is primarily a process of __________.
a. style
b. influence
c. personality
d. power
7. __________leaders influence their followers by motivating them to an extraordinary
extent.
a. Transformational
b. Salient
c. Charismatic
d. External
8. Social proof represents a principle of influence guided by the process of __________.
a. cooperative power
b. peer pressure
c. social conditioning
d. social comparison
9. To effectively lead and influence others, team members must first be able to
__________.
a. effectively lead themselves
b. plan and rehearse team activities
c. conquer existing social conditioning
d. make accurate social comparisons
10. Employee involvement is associated with all of the following outcomes EXCEPT
__________.
a. increased buy-in and commitment to the organization
b. enhanced capability for autonomous work
c. unilateral decision making regarding organizational strategy
d. collaborative identification and resolution of issues
Answers: c, a, c, d, b, b, c, d, a, c.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Consider an experience you have had working within a group. How would you characterize the leadership style developed within that group? Would that style translate
to an appealing leadership style in the workplace? Why or why not?
2. Identify some of the different ways you have seen people assert power in organizations. Which of those were most productive? Which were least productive? What do
you think characterized the difference between these assertions of power?
© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
cog81769_09_c09_313-346.indd 342
8/19/16 9:34 AM
Chapter 9 Summary and Resources
3. In 1974 sociologist Phillip Kunz sent out handwritten Christmas cards and a family
photo to 600 randomly selected strangers. Within a few weeks, Kunz received
more than 200 replies, many of which were handwritten and contained personal
information about the senders’ own families, as if Kunz was a regular contact on the
recipients’ Christmas card list. In fact, Kunz did become a regular on those lists—
and continued to receive Christmas cards from these total strangers for the next 15
years. Using the concepts from this chapter, explain this phenomenon and why it
occurred.
Additional Resources
Links
• Leadership and Influence:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2016/05/31/12-experts
-discuss-the-difference-between-leadership-and-influence/#24d31bc17c24
• Being an Effective Manager:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/universityofphoenix/2016/05/31/avoiding
-leadership-letdown-5-ways-to-be-a-more-effective-manager/#18a532cc39a4
• Teamwork Values for Leadership:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jpmorganchase/2016/05/13/lessons-in-life-and
-leadership/#3b6770ca524c
• Leading Others:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2016/05/17
/effective-leadership-how-to-be-more-than-just-a-boss/#5828dc712b29
• Women on the Rise in Leadership Roles:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmcgaughy/2016/05/12/women-leaders
-another-reason-to-invest-in-emerging-markets/#fba72cc24204
• Shifting from Leader to Team Member:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymuse/2016/05/23/5-ways-to-keep-your
-leadership-tendencies-in-check-when-youre-n...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment