Power and Influence

Power and Influence | Theories of Social Power and the Effect on Leaders | Rachael Jones |

BUAD 5013 25 April 2011

Table of Contents Introduction 3

Social Dominance Theory 3

The French and Raven Power Taxonomy 4

Approach Inhibition Theory of Power 7

Asymmetrical Outcome Dependency Theory 8

Three Process Theory of Power 8

Identity Model of Power 9

The Effect of These Theories on Leaders 9

Implications for Leaders 10

Key Learnings 11 Conclusion 12 Bibliography 13 Appendix 16

Introduction

There have been many different theories on social power and where that power comes from. The most famous of the social power models being that of French and Raven’s 1959 power taxonomy. Other theories of social power include: Social Dominance Theory, Three Process of Power, Identity Model of Power, Asymmetrical Outcome Dependency Theory, and Approach-Inhibition Theory of Power. All of these models have a source of power and an influence strategy, or way that the source of power is used. Leaders have more than one source of power available to them and can use a number of strategies to reach the outcome that they want. The way that a leader uses their power affects how a subordinate responds to the tactic that the leader employs. Some theories also explain the effect of power on the individual. One important thing to note though is that all individuals have power but the distinction that leaders want to make is that they have social power.
Social Dominance Theory

The Social Dominance Theory was developed by Sidanius and Pratto. Social Dominance Theory suggests that power comes from different social classes and attempts to clarify the social psychological processes used in forming and maintaining group-based social hierarchies (Brauer, pg. 605). Sidanius and Pratto posited that inequality of group-based hierarchies is universal and recurrent. According to Social Dominance Theory, people who are a part of the dominant group believe that society is stratified and that people at the top deserve their power and that people at the bottom deserve to have little power. The theory also suggests that hierarchy-enhancing forces promote inequality and hierarchy-attenuating forces promote equality (Brauer, pg. 605).
The French and Raven Power Taxonomy

Before the effect of a stereotype can be seen an understanding of the power bases needs to be known. According to French and Raven there are five bases of power, this has later been expanded by Raven,: legitimate power, expert power, referent power, reward power, and coercive power. Each of these power bases relies on something different to create the perceived power. Legitimate Power Legitimate power is “having a justifiable right to request compliance from another individual” (Elias, pg. 270). Meaning that legitimate power would be in use when a manager asks an employee to complete a routine task at work. The employee does as the manager asks because the manager has the right to ask the employee to complete the task.
Legitimate power has been separated out into four types of legitimate power since the original taxonomy came into use. The four types are position, reciprocity, equity, and dependence. French and Raven’s original definition of legitimate power is now position power that is the power holder has a position that allows them to request an action of the subordinate. Legitimate reciprocity power is when the person requesting compliance has done something in the past for the other person, this is when favors come into play. Legitimate equity power is closely related to legitimate reciprocity power. The key difference being how much the power holder has done in the past for the other individual (a large favor for a small favor). Finally, when the power holder’s ability to do something depends on the other individual legitimate dependence power is at use. Expert Power/Informational Power Expert power is “when one relies on his or her superior knowledge in order to gain compliance” (Elias, pg. 270). For example, when an organization calls on the help of an outside consulting firm to help with an IT problem. The organization will most likely follow the recommendations of the consulting firm because of the consulting firm’s expertise in IT.
Expert power can take on negative and positive forms. Positive expert power is when the knowledge that one possesses is used to better the team or organization. When the knowledge that the power holder has is used to better the power holder personally instead of the organization negative expert power is being used.
Raven’s six power base informational power was included in French and Raven’s 1959 Chapter as part of expert power. Informational power is when a rational explanation is given as to why compliance should occur (Elias, pg. 272). Informational power has been segmented into direct and indirect informational power. Direct informational power is when the problem is confronted “head-on” and indirect would be akin to hinting at a problem. For example a subordinate will hint to management that there is a problem in the organization, such as safety. Referent Power Referent power is “when a target complies with the request of a power holder due to his or her identifying with the influencing agent” (Elias, pg. 270). This type of power is used when the power holder has the respect of the individual. It is also used when the individual covets something about the power holder, usually the individual aspires to hold the same job position as the power holder.
Referent power has been thought of as being positive but Raven differentiated it into positive and negative. Positive referent power is when the power holder requests an action and has the respect of others. On the other hand, negative referent power is when someone tries to exert referent power when the individual is not identified with or disliked. When negative referent power is used many times the opposite action occurs (Elias, pg. 272). Reward Power Reward power is “when a power holder promises some form of compensation to a target in exchange for compliance” (Elias, pg. 270). The best way to explain the concept of reward power is to put it in terms of a financial gain. An executive may use reward power by using the benefit of a bonus to get employees to achieve excellent performance. A reward, in addition, could be praise for a job well done, a promotion in title only, a parking space, or better office space.
Raven expanded reward power to personal and impersonal reward power. Personal reward power deals with relationships between the manager and employee, which is the reward is some sort of approval. Impersonal reward power deals with the reward being positive. To illustrate, personal reward power would be when a manager tells an employee that they did a good job on a project and impersonal reward power would be giving an employee a bonus for a job well done. Coercive Power Whereas coercive power is “when the threat of punishment is made in order to gain compliance” (Elias, pg. 270). Coercive power should not be used on a regular basis. A supervisor who constantly tells employees that they will lose their job if they do not perform accordingly will deplete employee morale and cooperation.
Coercive power is also broken down into personal and impersonal coercive power by Raven. Again, impersonal coercive power would be terminating an employee for failing to complete their job in a satisfactory manner and personal coercive power would be a supervisor rebuffing an employee for unsatisfactory work. The threat of rejection has been found to be a very strong form of coercion, just as approval is a very strong form of reward power (Elias, pg. 271).
Approach Inhibition Theory of Power

The Approach-Inhibition Theory of Power was proposed by Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson and addresses the influence of power on the individual. This theory holds that a high power individuals develop a style that is approach related and experience positive effects, are more attentive to social rewards, process their environments in more automatic ways, and view others in terms of how they satisfy their own goals and needs (Brauer, pg. 603). On the other hand, low power individuals behaviors are contingent on others behaviors and attitudes. Low power individuals also see themselves as the means to the end of others, experience negative effects (shame), and develop inhibition related tendencies (Brauer, pg. 603).
Asymmetrical Outcome Dependency Theory

Fiske and Dépret proposed the Asymmetrical Outcome Dependency Theory, which states that individuals or groups are powerful when their outcomes depend less on others and others outcomes depend more on them (Brauer, pg. 603). This meaning that people have a need for control. For those who are already powerful or are a part of a powerful group can attend less to others needs, but powerless people or people part of a powerless group has a need to gain control. Powerful people maintain control by attending to stereotype-inconsistent information and powerless people attend to stereotype-consistent information (Brauer, pg. 204).
Three Process Theory of Power

Turner elaborates on his social identity theory and self-categorization theory to develop the Three Process Theory of Power based on psychological group formation (Brauer, pg. 604). According to Turner, “Group identity unifies and empowers people by giving them a common self-interest and vantage point. It produces influence and influence enables a group to act as a unified, coordinated, organized body. Group identity and influence give people the power of collective action and cooperative endeavor, a power to affect the world and pursue shared goals much greater than any member wield in isolation.” (pg. 604). This theory posits that power is a consequence of influence which is caused by group formation. Three social influence processes are: persuasion, authority, and coercion (Brauer, pg. 604). Persuasion is the ability to convince others that a decision is right, authority is the ability to control group-norms and others, and coercion is the attempt to control others against their will.
Identity Model of Power

Simon and Oakes Identity Model of Power is similar to the Three Process Theory of Power, but believe that power comes from the ability to control others inputs into the powerful groups projects. This theory suggests that power holder’s do not use coercive power but promote social identities that align with their beliefs and marginalize others (Brauer, pg. 605).
The Effect of These Theories on Leaders

The power bases defined by French and Raven essentially encompass the other theories of power. With the French and Raven model leaders have many different bases of power at their disposal based on the situation. Depending on the power base used the leader can then influence subordinates’ behaviors. In the Social Dominance Theory leaders are drawing on legitimate, expert, and undeserved referent power to control in-group members and out-groups. Although the Identity Model of Power disclaims the use of coercive power, both the Identity Model of Power and the Three Process Theory of Power draw on a leaders ability to use coercive, and conversely reward power, to achieve the objectives of the leader or dominant leader group. Both the Asymmetrical Outcome Dependency Theory and Approach Inhibition Theory show that leaders need to use reward power. The use of reward power, especially some form of recognition, will improve employee motivation and may help to improve an employee’s view of themselves creating a better work environment.
Implications for Leaders

No matter the theory leaders need to showcase that they ultimately have the power and make final decisions. In a study by Renee de Reveur, dominant subordinates used more dominance and less submissiveness when dealing with submissive managers (pg. 589). This poses a problem for that leader in that they may be taken advantage of more often than dominant managers. This is also true when less powerful people are not ready to accept that the leader ultimately controls outcomes (less powerful person tries to gain more power) (Bruins, pg. 844). Harsh and soft tactics also have a place in a leader’s repertoire of influence strategies. Harsh tactics are related to a person’s position, whereas soft tactics are based upon the leaders personal characteristics (Schwarzwald, pg. 386). In this context, a leader needs to be able to successfully assess their power and the power of their “target” in order to determine if soft or harsh tactics are the most appropriate (Somech, pg. 167). Another concern for leaders deals with how the leader views their job stability. When a leader feels that their position is threatened they tend to try and control outcomes more instead of letting subordinates control more (Georgesen, pg. 461). This can cause problems when high levels of creativity are needed. A leader who is constantly checking up on subordinates can impede the creative process.
Key Learnings

The first most important thing that leaders need to understand is that everyone has individual power and at times can exert social power. The important thing to note is that high personal power causes people to behave contrarily to social norms (Lammers, pg. 1547). Other factors such as stereotypes can additionally cause people to act in contrast or conformity to stereotypes. Furthermore, different theories of social power need to be understood so subordinate behaviors and reactions can be explained. The different social power theories can all be connected and only a basic understanding is needed to be able to recognize reasons for subordinate actions.
Conclusion

Research into how different social power theories interact and connect to one another needs to be done. How do some of these theories directly affect the leader/subordinate relationship? An understanding of how leaders can use these different theories to influence others and specific tactics that can be used need to be explained by further research as well. At all times people are exerting power and influence or conforming to the influence and power of another. Understanding that many different situational contexts dictate who has power in a given situation can help build cohesion and cooperativeness among co-workers. Furthermore, a clear definition of power for an organization will help define who leaders are.

~Power – the ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something~

Bibliography

Brauer, M. & Richard Y Bourhis. (2006). Social power. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 36(4), 601. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1156232471).

Bruins, J., Ellemers, N., & De Gilder, D. (1999). Power use and differential competence as determinants of subordinates ' evaluative and behavioural responses in simulated organizations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(7), 843-870. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Caza, B., Tiedens, L., & Lee, F.. (2011). Power becomes you: The effects of implicit and explicit power on the self. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 15. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2207927511).

Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1997). Nonconscious behavioral confirmation processes:
The self-fulfilling consequences of automatic.. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(5), 541. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Cook, J.. Social stigma and subjective power in naturalistic social interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, United States -- Oregon. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ProQuest Psychology Journals.(Publication No. AAT 3276042).

Cook, J., Arrow, H., & Malle, B.. (2011). The Effect of Feeling Stereotyped on Social
Power and Inhibition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(2), 165. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2256433111).

DeWall, C., & Maner, J. K. (2008). High Status Men (But Not Women) Capture the
Eye of the Beholder. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 328-341. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Elias, S.. (2008). Fifty years of influence in the workplace :The evolution of the
French and Raven power taxonomy. Journal of Management History, 14(3), 267-283. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1506393081).

Forsberg, T., & Seppo, A. (2009). Power without Influence? The EU and Trade
Disputes with Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 61(10), 1805-1823. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost. doi:10.1080/09668130903278967

Georgesen, J., & Harris, M. J. (2006). Holding onto power: effects of powerholders ' positional instability and expectancies on interactions with subordinates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 451-468. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost. doi:10.1002/ejsp.352

Guinote, A., Willis, G., & Martellotta, C.. (2010). Social power increases implicit prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 299. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1965260201).

Koslowsky, M. (2001). On the Relationship between Subordinates ' Compliance to
Power Sources and Organisational Attitudes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 455. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Koslowsky, M. & Stashevsky, S.. (2005). Organizational values and social power.
International Journal of Manpower, 26(1), 23-34. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 872128131).

Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). Differentiating Social and
Personal Power: Opposite Effects on Stereotyping, but Parallel Effects on Behavioral Approach Tendencies. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 20(12), 1543-1549. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02479.x

Lin, C.. (2008). Examination of Gender Differences in Modeling OCBs and Their
Antecedents in Business Organizations in Taiwan. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 261-273. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1446659571).

OBrien, L. V., & McGarty, C. (2009). Political disagreement in intergroup terms:
Contextual variation and the influence of power. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 77-98. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost. doi:DOI:10.1348/014466608X299717

Overbeck, J., Larissa Z Tiedens, & Sebastien Brion. (2006). The powerful want to, the powerless have to: perceived constraint moderates causal attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 479. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1156232411).

Pettigrew, Andrew, & McNulty, Terry. (1995). Power and influence in and around the boardroom. Human Relations, 48(8), 845. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 6775395).

Pratto, F., & Espinoza, P. (2001). Gender, Ethnicity, and Power. Journal of Social
Issues, 57(4), 763. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Renee de Reuver. (2006). The influence of organizational power on conflict dynamics. Personnel Review, 35(5), 589-603. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1143130871).

Ripoll, M., Rodríguez, F., Barrasa, A., & Antino, M. (2010). Leadership in entrepreneurial organizations: Context and motives. Psicothema, 22(4), 880-886. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2000). Why do superiors attend to negative stereotypic information about their subordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(5), 651-671. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M. & Ochana-Levin, T.. (2004). Usage of and
Compliance with Power Tactics in Routine Versus Nonroutine Work Settings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(3), 385-402. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 548893381).

Shankar, Arti, Ansari, Mahfooz A, & Saxena, Seema. (1994). Organizational context and ingratiatory behavior in organizations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(5), 641. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 7235515).

Somech, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A.. (2002). Relative power and influence strategy: The effects of agent-target organizational power on superiors ' choices of influence strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 167-179. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 111981117).

Ward, E. A. (1998). MANAGERIAL POWER BASES AND SUBORDINATES '
MANIFEST NEEDS AS INFLUENCES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE. Journal of Business & Psychology, 12(3), 361-378. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from EBSCOhost.

Vescio, T., Sarah J Gervais, Swen Heidenreich, & Mark Snyder. (2006). The effects of prejudice level and social influence strategy on powerful people 's responding to racial out-group members. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 435. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1156232381).

Appendix

Doise’s Epistemological Continuum

Bibliography: Brauer, M. & Richard Y Bourhis. (2006). Social power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 601 Bruins, J., Ellemers, N., & De Gilder, D. (1999). Power use and differential competence as determinants of subordinates ' evaluative and behavioural responses in simulated organizations Caza, B., Tiedens, L., & Lee, F.. (2011). Power becomes you: The effects of implicit and explicit power on the self Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1997). Nonconscious behavioral confirmation processes: The self-fulfilling consequences of automatic. dissertation, University of Oregon, United States -- Oregon. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ProQuest Psychology Journals.(Publication No. AAT 3276042). Cook, J., Arrow, H., & Malle, B.. (2011). The Effect of Feeling Stereotyped on Social Power and Inhibition DeWall, C., & Maner, J. K. (2008). High Status Men (But Not Women) Capture the Eye of the Beholder Elias, S.. (2008). Fifty years of influence in the workplace :The evolution of the French and Raven power taxonomy Forsberg, T., & Seppo, A. (2009). Power without Influence? The EU and Trade Disputes with Russia Georgesen, J., & Harris, M. J. (2006). Holding onto power: effects of powerholders ' positional instability and expectancies on interactions with subordinates Guinote, A., Willis, G., & Martellotta, C.. (2010). Social power increases implicit prejudice Koslowsky, M. (2001). On the Relationship between Subordinates ' Compliance to Power Sources and Organisational Attitudes Koslowsky, M. & Stashevsky, S.. (2005). Organizational values and social power. International Journal of Manpower, 26(1), 23-34. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 872128131). Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). Differentiating Social and Personal Power: Opposite Effects on Stereotyping, but Parallel Effects on Behavioral Approach Tendencies Lin, C.. (2008). Examination of Gender Differences in Modeling OCBs and Their Antecedents in Business Organizations in Taiwan OBrien, L. V., & McGarty, C. (2009). Political disagreement in intergroup terms: Contextual variation and the influence of power Overbeck, J., Larissa Z Tiedens, & Sebastien Brion. (2006). The powerful want to, the powerless have to: perceived constraint moderates causal attributions Pettigrew, Andrew, & McNulty, Terry. (1995). Power and influence in and around the boardroom Pratto, F., & Espinoza, P. (2001). Gender, Ethnicity, and Power. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 763 Renee de Reuver. (2006). The influence of organizational power on conflict dynamics Ripoll, M., Rodríguez, F., Barrasa, A., & Antino, M. (2010). Leadership in entrepreneurial organizations: Context and motives Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Moya, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2000). Why do superiors attend to negative stereotypic information about their subordinates? Effects of power legitimacy on social perception Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M. & Ochana-Levin, T.. (2004). Usage of and Compliance with Power Tactics in Routine Versus Nonroutine Work Settings Shankar, Arti, Ansari, Mahfooz A, & Saxena, Seema. (1994). Organizational context and ingratiatory behavior in organizations Somech, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A.. (2002). Relative power and influence strategy: The effects of agent-target organizational power on superiors ' choices of influence strategies Ward, E. A. (1998). MANAGERIAL POWER BASES AND SUBORDINATES ' MANIFEST NEEDS AS INFLUENCES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE Vescio, T., Sarah J Gervais, Swen Heidenreich, & Mark Snyder. (2006). The effects of prejudice level and social influence strategy on powerful people 's responding to racial out-group members