Employee reactions to leadership sources of power

Abstract:
Five different sources of power utilized by leaders in organizations: coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent are examined and each power sources is distinguished as eliciting different reactions from employees. Examination of management of interpersonal conflict, subordinate compliance, and employee satisfaction indicate that employees react to the assertions of these different sources of power by being resistant, compliant, or committed to the leader and the organization.

Introduction:
Effective leadership mandates not only that the power exercised produce the desired behavioral results in subordinates but also achieves a lasting commitment to the leader and the organization from subordinates as well. The different types of power utilized by a leader produce different reactions from employees, eliciting responses that can be characterized as resistant, compliant, or committed. In The Art and Science of Leadership, Afsaneh Nahavandi examines the five different sources of power exerted by leaders in organizations that were first identified by John French and Bertram Raven in 1959, and also examines the reactions of employees to the exercise of these different sources of power.
Nahavandi distinguishes an individual’s organizational powers between those powers that are bestowed upon an individual by virtue of placement within their environment, and those powers which arise from an individual’s own characteristics, (p. 164). Position based power sources include legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power, while personal sources of power include expert power and referent power. Legitimate power is based upon the subordinate’s belief that the supervisor has the right to control their behavior by virtue of their position, while reward power is based upon the belief that the supervisor can bestow rewards for desired behaviors, and coercive power is the based upon the belief that the supervisor can punish employees for undesirable behaviors. Personal power sources, expert power and referent power, are influence related and derive out of the employees respect for the individual that wields the power. Expert power is based upon the subordinate’s belief that the supervisor has experience and ability, while referent power is based upon admiration for the supervisor and the supervisor’s likeability. Utilizing different power sources produces different expected results with employees either resisting the authority, complying with the authority or committing to the authority and the organization. Nahavandi maintains employees display resistance to reward and coercive power, compliance with legitimate power, and more readily display commitment to the influence of expert and referent power. Gary Yukl and Cecilia Falbe, agree with Nahavandi’s assessment, noting that subordinates rate the effectiveness of managers with personal power more strongly than the effectiveness of managers with position power, (1991). Additionally, Yukl and Falbe distinguish the effectiveness of power sources between managers and supervisors, (defined as lower level managers), indicating that position based power sources including legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power are more effective tools for managers than for supervisors. Yukl and Falbe also note that subordinates view reward powers and coercive powers are the least important sources of influence, while they view legitimate power as the single most important source of influence in lateral and downward relationships, (1991).
Influence Tactics for Operational Business Problems – Interpersonal Conflict
A major operational problem for an organization is how management chooses to handle interpersonal conflict. If managed incorrectly through poor leadership interpersonal conflicts can be prolonged and even exacerbated. Afzalur Rahim and Gabriel Buntzman identify five different tactics for handling interpersonal conflict: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising, and maintain that leaders handle conflicts either by satisfying their own concerns, the concerns of others, or both, (1989). Integrating indicates a high concern for both self and others, it is identifiable by an open exchange of information to reach a mutually agreeable solution to resolve differences, and is most associated with a referent and expert sources of power. Obliging indicates a lower concern for self and a higher concern for others, attempting to play down differences between individuals and it is most often associated with a referent source of power. Dominating is considered a forcing behavior and indicates a high concern for self and low concern for others and, although it can be associated with expert power, it is primarily associated with legitimate power. Avoiding indicates both a low concern for self and for others and indicates management is withdrawing from the resolving interpersonal conflict, it is consequently not associated to a high degree with any source of power though it is linked to reward source of power to a lesser degree. Compromising indicates an intermediate concern for self and others, is identifiable by a mutual decision making process, and is associated exclusively with referent power. It is interesting to note that the coercive source of power is not identified with any of the tactics for successfully handling conflict. Clearly the leader utilizing legitimate, expert, or referent power sources will be the most successful when dealing with interpersonal conflict within an organization. Additionally, Nahavandi indicates that these same three power sources lead to compliance and commitment from employees, (p. 164). Ideally, leadership would utilize the integrating tactic, which indicates both a high degree of concern for self and others, and is most associated with expert and referent power sources.
Influence Tactics for Administrative Business Problems – Subordinate Compliance
Subordinate compliance indicates the willingness of employees to follow the instructions of their superiors. Subordinates that cannot be counted upon to conform to the influence of their leaders pose an intrinsic threat to the values to an organization’s administrative principles. Rahim and Buntzman write that the most effective evaluation of the use of power within an organization is the ability to measure the compliance of employees to leadership, (1989). In their study the highest correlation existed between referent power and subordinate compliance, and although the authors found a positive correlation between legitimate power sources and compliance they found that this was not correlated with the employee’s satisfaction with their supervisor. Clearly the leader that utilizes a referent power source has the greatest success of achieving organizational goals by ensuring that they influence their subordinates and their subordinates comply with their instructions.
Influence Tactics for Ethical Business Problems – Employee Satisfaction
Valentine, Varca, Godkin and Barnett indicate in their 2008 research study that there is a positive correlation between a positive employee job response, indicating job satisfaction, and higher levels of ethical behavior, (2010). Valentine et al measure 92 pairs of managers and subordinates responses and correlated between the employee’s positive job responses and their intention to stay with an organization and their manager’s evaluation of their ethical performance. Afzalur and Buntzman indicate that employee satisfaction is positively correlated to both expert and referent power sources, while it is a negatively correlated to coercive power sources, and there is no consistent correlation evident to either reward or legitimate power sources, (1989). Additionally the authors indicate that only referent power sources were positively correlated with employee satisfaction, behavior, and attitude. Clearly employees respond consistently positive when they are supervised by leaders with either expert or referent power sources, this is reflected in increased job satisfaction as evidenced by satisfaction with their supervisors and is most apparent when they are supervised by ethical leaders.
Conclusion:
Employees clearly react more positively when managers utilize personal power sources to solve conflicts between employees, provide instruction to them, and supervise them, rather than managers that rely upon organizationally conferred power sources. Managers that utilize referent, expert, or legitimate power sources more successfully manage their subordinates, with referent power sources clearly being the superior method for managing interpersonal conflict, promoting subordinate compliance, and increasing employee satisfaction. Additionally, leaders demonstrating leadership skills derived from personal power sources produce employees that are more committed to the leader and to the organization.















References:
Afzalur, R. & Buntzman, G. (1989 March). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling conflict with subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction. Journal of Psychology, 123(2), 195-210. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Business Source Complete.
Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Valentine, S., Varca, P., Godkin, L., and Barnett, T. (2010, January). Positive job response and ethical job performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 195-206. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Business Source Complete.
Yukl, G. & Falbe, C. (1991, June). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 416-423. Retrieved from APA PsychArticles.