Chapter Six Leadership as an Influence Process Mc

Chapter Six Leadership as an Influence Process Mc. Graw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The Mc. Graw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

Figure 6. 1 The Leader Power—Follower Response Relationship 6 -2

Reading 12 The Bases of Social Power § The phenomena of power and influence involve a dyadic relation between two agents § What determines the behavior of the agent who exerts power? § What determines the reactions of the recipient of this behavior? § P is the person upon whom power is exerted 6 -3

Reward Power § It depends on O’s ability to administer positive valences and to remove negative valences § The utilization of actual rewards (instead of promises) by O will tend over time to increase the referent power of O over P § The range of reward power is specific to those regions within which O can reward P for conforming 6 -4

Coercive Power § This power stems from the expectation of P that he will be punished by O if he fails to conform to the influence attempt § Coercive power leads to dependent change § Reward power will tend to increase the attraction of P toward O; coercive power will decrease this attraction 6 -5

Legitimate Power § This power stems from internalized values in P which dictate that: § O has a legitimate right to influence P § P has an obligation to accept this influence § Bases for legitimate power § Cultural values § Acceptance of the social structure § Designation by a legitimizing agent 6 -6

Legitimate Power § Range of legitimate power of O/P § Areas in which legitimate power may be exercised are specified along with the designation of that power § The use of legitimate power which is outside the range of legitimate power will decrease the power of the authority figure § Legitimate power and influence § The system which results from legitimate power usually has high dependence on O though it may become independent 6 -7

Referent Power § The referent power of O/P has its basis in the identification of P with O § A feeling of oneness of P with O § O has the ability to influence P, even though P may be unaware of this referent power § The basic distinction between referent power and both coercive and reward power is the mediation of the punishment and the reward by O 6 -8

Expert Power § The strength of the expert power of O/P varies with the extent of the knowledge or perception which P attributes to O within a given area § Expert power results in primary social influence on P’s cognitive structure and probably not on other types of systems § The range of expert power is more delimited than that of referent power § The expert is seen as having superior knowledge or ability in very specific areas 6 -9

Reading 13 Relationships between Leader Reward and Punishment Behavior and Group Processes and Productivity § Understanding the relationship between leaders and groups is important because: § Leaders emerge from groups § Leaders determine goals of groups § Leaders are influenced by groups § Two general classes of leader behavior that seem to be relevant to group processes and productivity are: § Leader reward § Punishment behaviors 6 -10

Leader Behavior and Group Cohesiveness § Byrne has hypothesized that we: § Are attracted to those individuals or groups in whose presence we receive rewards § Are not attracted to those individuals or groups in whose presence we are punished § Leader contingent reward behavior is: § Positively related to perceptions of group cohesion § Negatively related to this criterion variable 6 -11

Leader Behavior And Group Drive § Zander views the group’s aspiration level to be a function of individual group members’ perceptions of the probability that the group will be able to achieve success and avoid failure § Leader contingent reward and contingent punishment behavior is positively related to group members’ perceptions of group drive § Leader noncontingent reward and noncontingent punishment behavior is not related to group drive 6 -12

Leader Behavior and Group Productivity § Stogdill has reported that group drive is positively related to group productivity § Zander has noted that group drive may result in group productivity when group members are provided with accurate performance feedback § Group members’ perceptions of: § Leader contingent reward and punishment behaviors is positively related to their perceptions of group productivity § Leader noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors is not related to the perceptions of group productivity 6 -13

Assumptions Underlying Expectations § Respondents in the present study are in functioning groups § No competition or work-flow interdependence exists among group members 6 -14

Discussion and Conclusions § Leaders who reward individuals appropriately also reward the group as a whole when it performs well or succeeds on a task § Several studies suggest that: § Individually administered monetary rewards are more effective when the tasks subordinates perform are independent § Rewards based on group performance are more effective when tasks are additive or require cooperation 6 -15

Discussion and Conclusions § There is a consistent positive relationship between contingent punishment behavior and group drive and productivity § Leaders who administer evaluative rewards and punishments contingently will have a more functional effect on: § Subordinate performance and satisfaction § Group outcomes 6 -16

Reading 14 Cooperation as a Function of Leader Self-Sacrifice, Trust, and Identification § One of the core functions of leadership is to motivate individuals to cooperate towards collective goals § Leaders’ ability to motivate individuals beyond self-interest is of key importance to the effectiveness of groups and organizations § Trust in the leader plays an important role in mediating the effects of leader self-sacrifice on follower cooperation 6 -17

Leader Self-sacrifice, Trust in the Leader, and Follower Cooperation § Self sacrificing leaders, compared with self-benefiting leaders, are better able to motivate group members to cooperate with the collective § A key process that plays a role in explaining the psychology of self sacrificing leadership is trust in the leader § A trustworthy leader communicates that the intentions of the leader in the future will be fair and honest 6 -18

The Present Study § Hypotheses used in study 1 § H 1 - A self-sacrificing leader elicits more cooperation than a self-benefiting leader § H 2 - A self-sacrificing leader elicits more trust than a selfbenefiting leader § H 3 - Trust in the leader mediates the effect of self-sacrifice on cooperation § Hypotheses used in study 2 § H 4 - A self-sacrificing leader promotes collective identification more than a self benefiting leader § H 5 - Collective identification mediates the effect of selfsacrifice on cooperation 6 -19

Discussion § Leader self-sacrifice on behalf of the collective is an effective way to stimulate follower cooperation § Leader self-sacrifice was positively related to cooperation, and this relationship was mediated by followers’ trust in the leader § Charismatic and transformational leadership is positively related to follower identification 6 -20

Conclusion § Motivating individuals to go beyond self-interest and to cooperate towards collective goals and interests is of major importance for the internal functioning of groups and organizations § Self-sacrifice moves people beyond self-interest § There is still much to learn about leader self-sacrifice § Self sacrifice creates a “source of psychological comfort for the followers” 6 -21