leadershipmurphy.weebly.com · web viewpower and influence are often associated with positions of...
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Power and Influence in Team Work
Harlan Kefalas, Ryan Murphy, Deborah Phelps, and Allie White
Fort Hays State University
Dr. Brent Goertzen
LDRS 807
Leadership and Teams in Collaborative Environments
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Power and Influence in Team Work
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
- Understand the bases of power within a work team
- Understand the evolution of authority and influence within organizations
- Understand the relationship between authority, influence and team productivity
- Understand transactional and transformational leadership theories
- Explain how ethics and morals guide transformational leadership
Overview of the Topic
Power and influence are often associated with positions of leadership in collaborative and
team environments. Power may be perceived by team members due to organizational structure,
personal characteristics, expertise, and/or access to specialized information. Conger and
Kanungo (1988) noted, “In management and social influence literature, power is primarily a
relational concept used to describe the perceived power or control that an individual actor or
organizational subunit has over others (p. 472). The method by which a leader chooses to exert
their perceived power can drastically influence team morale, motivation, performance, and
satisfaction. Individuals may exert their power through negative or positive influences. Negative
influences foster distrust and a lack of organizational commitment, while positive influences
boost motivation and morale. Perceived power of those in leadership roles can be used as a tool
to enhance positive influences and mitigate against negative ones.
This chapter will begin with a review of early perspectives of power and influence, which
include the democratization of the workforce, participative management theory, authority and
team typology, psychological empowerment and workplace effectiveness, early self-designing
1
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
work teams, authority and self-managing work teams, and influences within teams. A review of
contemporary perspectives will follow covering paradigm shift from leader-centric to
collaborative leadership models, influential leadership theories, positive and negative influences,
transformational leadership and competency-based supervision, and the importance of context.
Next we will reflect on the antecedents of power and influence with a focus on Taylor’s
scientific management, McGregor’s Theory X and Y, Mulder’s Power Distance Theory, and the
role of holacracy. The chapter will conclude by identifying the outcomes of power and influence
with a particular focus on the notion that how leaders use power and influence matters. Readers
should develop an understanding of the bases of power within a work team, the evolution of
power and influence, the role of power and influence on team productivity, the differences
between transactional and transformational leadership, and how ethics and morals guide or
influence leadership.
Key Terms
Charismatic leadership Manager-led team Self-directing teamCoercive power Norms Self-governing teamConformity Participative management theory Self-managing teamContingency model Power T-groupDemocratize Power distance Theory XEmpowerment Psychological empowerment Theory YHolacracy Self-determination
Early Perspectives of Power and Influence
The idea that managers should concede authority to workers found its roots in Douglas
McGregor’s Theory Y. This early attempt to democratize the workplace or provide a more equal
voice to the worker, was a proposition that recommended management should listen to and
involve workers (Weisbord, 2012). On its heels was Kurt Lewin’s T-group, an early group
structure designed to identify human resource problems and solutions, and then in 1970,
2
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Blansfield’s Team Effectiveness Theory became one of the first attempts to demonstrate that the
granting of power, skills and resources to teams could optimize systems, resulting in improved
quality and profits (Weisbord, 2012).
The Vroom-Yetton Contingency Model
Participative management theory is the sharing of increased decision-making authority
and responsibility with subordinates to increase the level of involvement in the control of the
organization (Cotton, 1994). For leaders implementing the theory, one vital question to be asked
is how much or what type of subordinate participation will positively affect the organization?
One attempt to answer this question was made by Vroom and Yetton in 1973 through the
development of a contingency model or a model that aids decision-making by providing a set of
outcomes that are dependent on the contingent or existing circumstances or in this case,
attributes. The Vroom-Yetton (V-Y) Model included rule sets that guided the leader in the
selection of autocratic (A), consultative (C) or group (G) decision-making choices with the final
option preserving the authority given to participating subordinates (Vroom & Jago, 1978).
Vroom and Jago’s (1978) test of the model positively identified V-Y as an effective
model for decision-selection processes. Researchers believed the data showed the model would
communicate when autocratic processes would be successful and participative processes would
fail and concluded with the opinion that both types of decisions would reduce errors in current
managerial practices (Vroom & Jago, 1978). This successful research was not an isolated case;
however, these initial studies collected information from managers only without the perspectives
of subordinates to those decision choices (Margerison & Glube, 1979). Research expanded in
the 1980’s to include ratings of leadership behaviors exposing reputational consequences for
3
Autocratic
Participative
AI: The leader solves the problem or makes the decision using the information available at the time.
AII. The leader obtains any necessary information from subordinates, then decides on a solution with our without telling the subordinates the purpose of the questions, the problem or decision the leader is working on. The subordinate input does not play a role in the definition of the problem or in generating or evaluating alternative solutions.
CI. The leader shares the problem with relevant subordinates individually, getting their ideas and suggestions but without bringing them together as a group. The leader then makes the decision and may or may not reflect the subordinates’ influence
CII. The leader shares the problem with subordinates in a group meeting where subordinate ideas and suggestions are solicited. The leader makes the decision, which may or may not reflect the subordinates’ influence.
GII The leader shares the problem with subordinates as a group and in partnership generate and evaluate alternatives, attempting to reach agreement on a solution. The leader’s role is much like that of chair, coordinating the discussion, keeping focus on the problem and ensuring critical issues are discussed. The leader provides the group with information or ideas but does not try to impress these solutions on the group, but instead is willing to accept and implement any solution that has the approval of the entire group.
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Figure 1. Taxonomy of Vroom-Yetton Model Decision Processes. Flow chart of leader decision-making processes. Adapted from “Taxonomy of Decision Processes,” by Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. C., 1978, JAP, 63(2), p. 152.
those leaders who made autocratic choices that withheld authority from subordinates (Heilman,
Hornstein, Cage & Herschlag, 1984). Subjects asked to assume the role of subordinate provided
the following information on the regard for authority by those in that follower role:
Subordinates rated leaders as less competent when autocratic behaviors were applied,
even when the model indicated an autocratic decision was correct;
Leaders who granted subordinate authority received higher likability ratings when
compared with those displaying autocratic decision-making choices; and
4
Task Completion
Management of Performance Processes
Team Design
Design of the Organizational Context
Manager-led teamsSelf-managing teamsSelf-designing teamsSelf-governing teams
Authority
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Subordinates rated autocratic decisions as less beneficial for the organization,
particularly when the situation appeared to call for shared decision-making (Heilman
et al., 1984)
Field and House (1990), the first to use manager and subordinate reports, collected
information about decision processes, quality and acceptance requirements. Individual
interviews revealed self-reported manager information supported the validity of the model, but
the data collected from subordinates did not (Field & House, 1990). This outcome supported the
earlier research focused on subordinate perspectives of leadership behavior, specifically those
behaviors related to decision-making processes (Heilman et al., 1984).
Authority and Team Type
Figure 2. Team design and authority. Team design as determined by level of group authority. Adapted from The design of work teams by Hackman, J. R., 1987, Handbook of organizational behavior.
Work team models with clearly defined levels of authority include manager-led, self-
managing, self-directing, and self-governing teams. Each bestows incremental levels of
authority with manager-led teams confined to task execution and self-governing teams holding
the highest level (Thompson, 2014).
5
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Psychological Empowerment and Self-Managing Teams
If empowerment is “the process by which a leader or manager shares his or her power
with subordinates” then its complement, psychological empowerment, is “the process of
enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of
conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal” (Conger & Kanungo, 1988, p.
473-474). Early research identified five stages in the employee empowerment process which
include expressing confidence in subordinate abilities, providing opportunities for subordinate
participation, and providing autonomy from organizational constraints as leadership practices
(Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Self-determination, defined as the freedom to make choices, should
be the result of empowerment in the workplace, and organizations that implement self-managing
work teams intend to empower employees but did research reveal that employees felt
empowered?
Qualitative information from the late 1990’s provided a closer look at what researchers
called empowerment “from the inside-out,” that is, not from the perspective of the organization’s
team design and support but instead directly from the team members (Bushe, Havlovic &
Coetzer, 1996, p. 36). Subjects reported significant feelings of empowerment due to high levels
of granted authority from managers who “did not interfere with their work and who consulted
with them before making any decisions that might affect them” and reached a high point when
the organization made the decision not to replace managers as they parted from the company
(Bushe et al., 1996, p. 38). Positive outcomes accompanying employee empowerment included
increased customer satisfaction, reduced employee stress, increased innovation resulting in
efficiencies and a transition from fear-driven to self-driven motivation for employees (Bushe et
al., 1996).
6
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Research by Kirkman and Rosen (1999) hypothesized that higher levels of team
empowerment would lead to higher levels of productivity, proactive behaviors, organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and customer service. Results proved that not only was team
empowerment significantly related to productivity, customer service, organizational commitment
and job satisfaction, but that it fully mediated the relationship between the team performance
variables (productivity, proactivity, and customer service) and team member attitudes (job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and team commitment) (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).
Early Self-Designing Work Teams: The Japanese Quality Circle
The introduction of the quality circle (QC), a small group of employees from the same
department who voluntarily meet regularly to identify and solve issues of quality, to America
and Europe from Japan might provide an important history lesson for how not to motivate
workers through team work. Implemented on a large scale in Japan from 1955 to 1960, the QC
had a measure of success in Japan where it was an autonomous part of the overall organization,
while its counterparts, studied during the last two decades of the twentieth century did not share
that same place in the organizational structure of many businesses nor its success (Munchus,
1983; Watanabe, 1991; Wood, Hull & Azumi, 1983).
Autonomy, defined here as the freedom from external control or influence and
specifically, the freedom or authority to select significant problems and then implement a
solution, was found to be crucial to the success of the QC (Stavroulakis, 1994; Watanabe, 1991;
Wood et al., 1983). Longitudinal research conducted over a three-year period and using input
from 73 subjects involved in eight QCs produced results that indicated a honeymoon period of
approximately eighteen months during which the QC units produced positive results but then
declined (Griffin, 1988, p. 354). This “honeymoon effect” was described in earlier by Lawler
7
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
and Moherman (1987) as a phase during which employees are enthusiastic about a new initiative,
receive increased attention from management, and are motivated to tackle workplace problems
(p. 42). However, this research also brought to light the repercussions after the honeymoon:
employee disillusionment characteristically sets in with reasons relating to power that include
push back from middle managers and an overall failure by the larger organization to implement
some of the ideas generated (Lawler & Moherman, 1987).
This same disillusionment became apparent approximately 48 months into the
implementation of the QCs studied by Griffin (1988) with qualitative feedback expressing
employee indifference about their participation combined with a belief that management was less
interested in the solutions they recommended (Griffin, 1988). Nonetheless, quantitative data
from the plant’s controller painted a different picture: of the 122 recommendations made by the
eight QCs, the company had adopted 81 without changing the employees’ proposals and
implemented another 10 after some modification, a 75% implementation rate (Griffin, 1988).
What then caused the employee disenchantment with the QC project? No conclusive
information was presented by the researcher, but one plausible theory is that while the
organization had empowered its employees, those employees did not individually feel
psychologically empowered.
Influence within Teams
Social Influence. Social influence or the attempt to change people has been studied in the
team setting since the middle of the twentieth century (Levi, 2001). Psychologists postulated
that normative influence, change caused by the desire to conform to norms or the rules defined
by a group, and informational influence, change caused by the acceptance of information from
others, are important antecedents to social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). In teams, social
8
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
influence may cause conformity, the willingness to change one’s perspectives and/or decision(s)
due to influence from others.
Bases of Power. One scale, developed to measure French and Raven’s (1959) Bases of
Social Power used the following classifications: Reward, coercive, legitimate, referent and
expert (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989). Each of these types of power has a cost to group
effectiveness from personal dislike that can arise with the use of coercive power to reward power
which may leave other team members feeling manipulated (Levi, 2001).
Corrupting Effects of Power. Inequality in group settings ultimately leads to bad
behavior. Differences in status among group members can lead to disparate amounts of
influence with lower-status members contributing less and higher-status members dominating
and passive-aggressive and aggressive behavior leading to ineffective outcomes (Levi, 2001).
Contemporary Perspectives of Power and Influence
In order to demonstrate proficiency in any facet of leadership behavior, managers must
glean insight from multiple paradigms of contemporary times. Historically, effective
management was presumed to be leader-centric and individualistic. It was thought that
businesses would enjoy success by embracing a “give and take” approach to management, often
instilling fear into employees to enhance performance. However, recent advancements in
leadership studies have identified emerging concepts that discount previously constructed views
relating to effective management styles. Contemporary paradigms have resulted in the
application of new theories which help guide leadership approaches. Accordingly, the two
emerging leadership theories reviewed in this chapter build upon the recent paradigm shift as it
applies to power and influence in the context of leadership.
9
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Transformational Leadership
During the 1970’s, transformational approaches began to transcend transactional
approaches to leadership. Bass (1985) furthered the work of Burns (1978) with his
Transformational Leadership Theory, a power and influence theory based upon the transactional-
transformational leadership paradigm. Transformational leadership is empirically rooted in idea
that leaders advance followers to a higher level of motivation by appealing to their higher needs
(Burns, 2003; Rost, 1991). Transformational leaders influence followers to change by
developing a clear vision and clearly communicating their vision in a manner that encourages
followers to share their enthusiasm for bringing their vision to fruition. Furthermore,
transformational leaders empower their followers by challenging them to perform their best,
often resulting in higher than average levels of performance.
The Four I’s. One set of characteristics central to the transformational leadership model
are commonly referred to as the Four I’s of transformational leadership (Kezar, Carducci, &
Contreras-McGavin, 2006). These attributes enable the leader to inspire followers as she
portrays an ideal role model, communicates follower expectations and provides individualized
attention.
10
Idealized InfluenceLeader serves as an ideal role model for followers
Individualized ConsiderationLeader demonstrates genuine concern for the needs and feelings of followers
Intellectual StimulationThe leader’s ability to hold followers to high expectations
Transformational Leadership
Inspirational MotivationThe leader’s unique ability to inspire and motivate others
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Figure 3. The Four I’s. Leader attributes and behaviors characteristic of the transformational leadership style. Adapted from Rethinking the "L" word in higher education: The revolution in research on leadership by Kezar et al., 2006.
Transformational leadership styles have proven advantageous, particularly in a world
where diversity and complex forces complicate past leadership styles. Perhaps its greatest
feature, however, has been in its ability to bring about new concepts to the field of leadership
studies (Kezer et al., 2006).
Charismatic Leadership
The charismatic leadership model, developed by Conger and Kanungo (1987, 1988),
identifies leader charisma as its foundation and focuses on a set of leader attributes that can be
directly observed from the follower’s perspective (Rowold & Laukamp, 2009). Charismatic
leaders employ their sense of style, flair, and confidence to build relationships with others. And
much like transformational leaders, charismatic leaders use these relationships to influence and
inspire followers. Common traits of effective charismatic leaders include extraordinary
communication skills, compassion, and substance.
Recent empirical work has validated charismatic leadership as a useful and effective
approach, gaining the attention of scholars and practitioners. Rowold and Laukamp’s (2009)
study of charismatic leadership, the first of its kind, identified a positive relationship between
11
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
charismatic leadership and an objective performance indicator. Their work shed new light on the
adequacy of charismatic leadership and recommended future research to further evaluate
charismatic concepts as they relate to power and influence.
The Influence of Contemporary Perspectives of Power and Influence of Organizations
The inclusion of transformational leadership behaviors and attributes into practice creates
positive outcomes within many organizational settings. A study by Deschamps, Rinfret, Lagace,
and Prive (2016) examined this effect on employee motivation in the context of organizational
justice within the Quebec healthcare system, identifying a relatively high correlation between
transformational leadership and positive followers’ perceptions of both procedural and
interactional justices. Similarly, Asif, Ayyub, and Bashir (2014) studied the relationship
between transformational leadership style and organizational commitment in the context of
psychological empowerment within the textile industry of Punjab Pakistan. Findings revealed a
significant association between psychological empowerment and affective organizational
commitment, further validating the efficacy of transformational leadership style. Finally, Chia-
Huei and Zhen (2015) further replicated beneficial implications through the examination of the
effects of transformational leadership on team proactivity within construction management teams
in China. This study discovered a decisive association between transformational leadership and
proactivity.
Concern about the “generalizability of transformational leadership attributes across
cultures” across the global nature of modern society prompted one study completed by the
Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness project (GLOBE) indicated that while
certain attributes of transformational leadership transcend cultures, others do not (Kezar et al.,
2006, p. 7). Specifically, the study revealed that certain traits such as risk-taking vary
12
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
significantly between cultures; this significant finding may prompt additional research on risk-
taking, an attribute of transformational leadership.
Practical Implications for Practice
The emergence of contemporary paradigms in the context of power and influence bring a
new understanding of what is required of effective leaders. As discussed within the text,
transformational leaders have the potential to bring about many positive changes, especially
within organizations accustomed to operating under antiquated approaches to power. Effective
transformational leaders have a unique ability to institute, initiate, and implement culture
changes that distribute influence more equally throughout the organization. Avolio and Bass
(1999) endorse the use of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to identify the
characteristics of a transformational leader and infuse transformational approaches into current
practice. Kim, Liden, Kim, and Lee (2015) recommend that organizations also seek leaders and
followers with high core self-evaluation (CSE) to augment the efficacy of transformational
leadership. Thus, it may be presumed that in order to maximize the effectiveness of
transformational leadership, organizations should promote education, development and skills
training in leadership training programs.
Emerging Views
Leadership research has evolved significantly over recent years and a variety of emerging
concepts continue to influence paradigm shifts. Many scholars embrace the concepts
surrounding transformational leadership, yet some reject the theory based on the hierarchical
nature of its approach. Barker (2001) asserts that “superior/subordinate” relationships diminish
the importance of other leadership variables, rendering the theory inferior to others. Stahl and
Sully de Luque (2014) propose that future studies concisely define responsible leadership and
13
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
focus on the influence that cultural diversity has upon responsible leadership. Vickers (2005) as
noted by Stahl and Sully de Luque (2014) notes that “global corporations operate in nations
where bribery, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and a variety of other issues are not
uniformly viewed as illegal or even unethical” (p. 30). It is likely that future power and
influence theories will examine cultural intelligence as they apply to effective leadership
approach.
Key Antecedents of Power and Influence
In recent history power and influence have become increasingly important in direct
correlation to the increase in organizational complexity with research from the turn of the
twentieth century attempting to explain worker behavior and develop principles for managers to
follow. Frederick Taylor (1915), widely known as the father of modern management, wrote The
Principles of Scientific Management and forty-five years later, Douglas McGregor (1960)
developed his Theory X and Theory Y management principles. A specific focus on power and
influence followed in 1977 when Mauk Mulder developed his power distance theory. With
technological advances, new models of organizational structure upend traditional power and
influence structures. One example, a holacracy, a flattened organizational structure with no job
titles, “removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles”
(Holacracy, n.d.).
Scientific Management
During the 1880’s Frederick Taylor began revolutionizing management practices.
Codifying his ideas and concepts in The Principles of Scientific Management, he believed that
only experts, trained industrial engineers, could more efficiently design tasks for workers. Time
and motion studies allowed tasks to be broken down to the simplest level and inefficiencies
14
Taylor’s Five Scientific Principles
Science, not rule of thumb
Harmony,not discord
Cooperation, not individual
Maximum output, not restricted output
Development of each man to his greatest efficiency and prosperity
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
identified. Taylor (1915) believed the ideal worker, the first class man, was not lazy but did
prioritize pay over other types of incentives.
In line with Taylor’s belief, a manager’s primary influence method was through wages,
and as workers learned more tasks, they earned more pay. Managers, occupying a power
position, influenced workers through the control of their wages. A set average output created
incentives for work to self-regulate production while pay for skills knowledge incentivized
workers to learn more jobs.
Figure 3. Five Scientific Principles. Principles of scientific management as developed by Frederick W. Taylor. Adapted from The Principles of Scientific Management by Taylor, F. W., 1915, p. 140.
One of Taylor’s largest influences was the concept of the external consultant. The
organization could empower the consultant, an expert from outside the organization, to
determine the optimal task design and discover any resistance of middle-management to new
ideas. However, in a role of outside the business, the consultant’s recommendations were often
never truly embraced by the company’s management.
Taylor’s principles continue to impact today’s workplace. The United States Army still
includes much of the institutional practices or structure of the Elihu Root reforms. Root applied
Taylor’s scientific management theories to the military context (Vandergriff, 2012). Outside of
the military, Taylor’s ideas still influence the workplace any time power and influence resides
primarily at the management level. However, in team-based organizations with shared power and
influence, Taylor’s division of work is less applicable (Benschop & Doorewaard, 1998).
15
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Theory X and Theory Y
Douglas McGregor (1960) developed two models explaining managers’ thoughts about
their workers, Theory X and Theory Y, in The Human Side of Enterprise. Theory X adherents
find workers inherently lazy and therefore, must be closely supervised or forced to work.
Managers with this belief use coercive power or authority dependent on fear and/or the use of
punishment or threat, to force workers to produce. Theory X follows Taylorism to a negative
extreme – time clocks, subdivided jobs, rigid job description and titles giving managers the
authority to treat people in any manner they desire. Influence tactics in Theory X primarily focus
on monetary gain only as employees possess little knowledge about the greater business context.
In sharp contrast, Theory Y adherents believe workers willingly seek responsibility for
their actions. Managers employing Theory Y utilize transformational leader behaviors and
persuasive influencing techniques to empower their subordinates. Today’s leader must be
flexible and able to react to situations differently; successful application of Theory Y requires a
larger working knowledge of power and influencing tactics.
Power Distance Theory
In 1977, Mauk Mulder culminated decades of research on power with his book, The
Daily Power Game. Power is a scarce commodity: people with power try to keep it while those
without power try to increase it. Power distance is the difference between a less powerful person
and a more powerful person. Mulder attempted to explain why managers in hierarchical
organizations did their best to maintain their power and, how in an attempt to maintain power,
they resist organizational change.
Power distance enlargement tendency concerns the relationship of a person with more
power towards a less powerful person. Mulder (1977) describes power distance enlargement as:
16
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
“the more powerful person will strive to maintain or to increase the power distance to the less powerful person” and “the greater the difference from the less powerful person, the stronger the striving to increase it” (p.4)
Power distance reduction theory explains why people with less power attempt to increase
it. Mulder (1977) described the behavior of a person of lesser power towards a person of greater
power:
“individuals will strive to reduce the power distance between themselves and more powerful others” and “the smaller the distance from the more powerful person, the stronger the tendency to reduce it” (p. 5)
Over thirty years later, Bruins and Wilke (1992) attempted to verify Mulder’s theory.
What may have been true in Mulder’s time is no longer true. People with little or no power are
not attempting to increase it. One possible explanation is that workers in a stable hierarchy feel
powerless to increase their authority. As a result, they know any attempt will end in failure
(Bruins & Wilke, 1992). Another reason is that modern organizations change, so that power and
status are temporary. Bruins and Wilke (1993) discovered individual motivation to change their
power distance is their “internalized norm about what one is entitled to” (p. 252). Mulder’s
theory has limited applicability in today’s organizational environment. As bureaucracies have
become more complex, power distance theory matters less (Bruins & Wilke, 1993).
Holacracy and Self-Governing Organizations
Previous power and influence theorists believed managers were necessary to possess
expert or positional power over their workers. Recently, holacracy, a self-governing method that
removes power from a traditional hierarchy, is being used to manage the workplace. Old
hierarchies with layers of middle managers are being smashed. No job titles are used. This new
strategy may be a modern interpretation of McGregor’s Theory Y with leadership moving from
an authoritative model to a more facilitative model with greater input from workers. Giang
17
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
(2015) stressed the need for employees to have influence within the organizational decision
making processes.
Key Outcomes of Power and Influence
How leaders use their power and influence matters and directly impacts organizational
outcomes (Burke et al., 2006). When leaders empower their subordinates, productivity rises.
Self-governing organizations outperform other organizational structures (LRN, 2016). When
75% of employees cite their immediate manager as a source of stress (Choi & Dickson, 2010), it
is clear that leaders are misusing their power and influence, and it may be undermining their
pursuit of organizational goals.
Meyer and Allen (1991) believe employees remain in an organization for three reasons:
need benefits, it is the right thing to do, or they are happy and emotionally attached to the
organization. The last item is the component most related to a manager’s power and influence.
When examining the use of power though, some researchers view it as a zero-sum game. Any
power given to subordinates is a reduction in their power (Randolph & Kemery, 2011). Tjosvold
(2006) believes power is expandable. Randolph (1995) takes the view that empowerment
releases power workers already possess from experience and knowledge.
Negative Outcomes
Employee Turn-over. An easy to measure the negative impact of misused power and
influence is voluntary employee turnover. Cost to replace an employee is difficult to determine
with estimates from 30% of an employee’s annual salary and 50% of a manager’s salary (Choi &
Dickson, 2010). Borysenko (2015) believes the range is higher, 30-50% for entry-level, 150%
for mid-level management, and 400% for high/very specialized workers. In 2004, the cost to
recruit one soldier was $15,000 (Buddin, 2005).
18
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
While much time and energy is spent on recruiting the right person for the organization,
relationship quality between the employee and their direct supervisor impacts retention the most.
Unfortunately, individuals occupying a supervisory role believe their use of power and influence
is better than their employees view it (Agrusa & Lema, 2007). Klocke (2009) discovered
perceptions of self and others alters once a person becomes a supervisor. Finally, supervisors
become blind to their impact on employees; research reveals three-fourths of employees who
voluntarily leave cite the relationship with their supervisor as the primary reason (Agrusa &
Lema, 2007).
Managers who resort to “perks, tit-for-tat and bonuses” as influence tools miss the
possible impact of their position (Haque, 2016, p. 3). Moving away from these influence
methods can increase organizational capabilities. Burke et al. (2006), determined transactional
influence methods have little impact on overall team effectiveness.
Groupthink. Group members will automatically position one another based on their
perceived status of each other (Islam & Zyphur, 2005). This may unintentionally cause conflicts,
especially when perceptions and reality are not congruent. If one is used to a position of power
and in the team, has a lower amount, they may act at cross purposes.
Conformity, a type of social influence causing individuals to change beliefs or behaviors
in order to fit in a group, can result in groupthink. Groupthink places “consensus above all other
priorities” (Thompson, 2011, p. 157). Similarly, the Abilene paradox occurs when conflict
avoidance leads to poor decision-making because individual power within the group is
imbalanced. Specifically, if one team member has more power than another, it is less likely they
will be contradicted (Islam & Zyphur, 2005). This conflict avoidance leads to conformity. Once
a decision is made, individuals may take on the role of preventing dissenters from speaking up
19
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
(Houghton, 2015). Leaders should use their power and influence to prevent these negative
outcomes.
Aggression. Within a work team, members may use social influence to attempt to change
or affect other team members. Levi (2001) identified three common power styles within groups:
aggressive (dominant and critical), nonassertive/passive (submissive and avoiding), and assertive
(positive and distributive). Aggression occurs when group member status is unequal with the
critical, demanding behavior of the dominating member causing resentful feelings,
defensiveness, and withdrawal by other members (Levi, 2001). When this occurs, there are two
possible sources for resolution: the remaining team members resolve to exert influence on the
offending member or request assistance from management, even outside the team, who possess
the authority to resolve the conflict. However, the potential for conflict to worsen increases if
management upholds the personal preference of one over the personal preference of another
(Levi, 2001; DeDreu & Vienan, 2001).
With conflict and conformity possible in work teams, both managers and team members
must utilize their power and influence to mitigate side effects. Group cohesion and performance
are linked (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). As a result, managerial focus should include cohesion and
influence methods should be used to “shape team performance” (DeDreu & Vienan, 2001).
Positive Outcomes
Empowerment. Not all managers misuse their power and influence. Good managers
empower their workers and empowered workers are more productive, more satisfied, and less
likely to leave their organization (Kim & Fernandez, 2015). Furthermore, organizational climate
must reflect employee empowerment. Key predictors of an empowerment climate are “expert,
20
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
referent, and reward” (Randolph & Kemery, 2011, p.103). Climate is set by the power base used:
positional and coercive power bases cannot empower workers.
Transformational leaders neutralize power distances (Liu & Liao, 2013). When power
distances are gone, workers are truly empowered. Line workers possess the knowledge needed to
make business decisions. Senior managers know the business context. Transformational leaders
increase the likelihood that their subordinates will speak up with their point of view in groups
(Liu & Liao, 2013). Managers employing transformational leadership behaviors empower
employees by ensuring all perspectives are expressed.
Virtual Teams
Traditional management thought arose from teams and organizations with work units located in
one geographic location. Many teams are now separated by distance and time. Managers of these
virtual teams must change their power and influence tactics to fit the new context. While certain
team designs reduce the influence management has on team outcomes, virtual team leaders have
a “stronger effect on team performance…than in face to face” (Purvanova & Bono, 2009, p.
352).
Case: Franklin’s Reflection
Late one evening Franklin, a Senior-level Manager specializing in process improvement
with ZYX Consulting, sat down to draft a speech recognizing the recent accomplishments of his
project management team. The project was to develop standardized security camera protocols for
a County Government covering several departments. Initial stakeholder interviews revealed that
this was a massive undertaking due to varying regulatory requirements and intended uses of
individual departments. As Franklin sat back, recalling the sense of despair among team
members as they realized the complexities of their project, a sly grin appeared on his face and he
21
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
began to revel in the knowledge that his team had flourished through positive influences and
psychological empowerment.
Franklin’s team lost their motivation when they had realized the scope of the project and
morale was very low. As the team lead, Franklin knew that he could set a new tone for team
motivation and morale, and although he would never acknowledge it, administration had chosen
him as the lead due to his transformative leadership style. Transformational leaders build
relationships, develop shared goals, and use cohesion to increase team effectiveness. Throughout
the project Franklin served as a positive influence on his team by mentoring, coaching, and role-
modeling, ultimately strengthening the relationships between team members. Franklin built
cohesion among team members by empowering them through participation in the decision
making process. As the team became empowered to cohesively make decisions, the level of
project ownership among members also increased.
While Franklin’s approach towards leadership may seem like commonsense, his choices
are not always common practice. Looking back at the project Franklin beamed with pride
knowing that his positive influences and desire to empower his colleagues led to the successful
completion of a very complex project. At the close of the project several team members informed
Franklin that his approach as the team lead increased motivation, morale, performance, and
satisfaction among members. Still Franklin’s pride did not come from the recognition he had
received from colleagues, but from the accomplishments of the team as whole. As Franklin
finalized his speech he was careful to include recognition for the team members who pulled
together as a cohesive unit, made the right decisions and performed at the highest level possible.
Questions for Reflection
What are some of the characteristics of Transformational Leadership?
22
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
In what other ways could Franklin have empowered his team?
In what ways did Franklin use his position of power to influence his team in positive
ways?
Case: Jane’s Dilemma
Jane took a deep breath and looked at the team assembled around the table. She still
couldn’t believe her supervisor had selected her to become a member; she still believed she was
the least knowledgeable employee in the College’s Financial Aid Office. And then she allowed
the group to manipulate her into leading! She shook her head in disbelief - she had begun to buy
in to the project at first, but after six weeks, she was ready to throw in the towel. This project
could really benefit their students but managing the disparate personalities and the inevitable
conflict that resulted during their meetings made her think back to that story from her childhood,
The Three Bears. From Jerry who dominated every conversation because he thought he knew so
much to Sara who seemed fearful and spoke too little – “Honestly!” she thought, “I just wish I
had more teammates like Frank – he’s just right. He has the most experience of all of us but he
listens patiently to everyone’s opinions. He isn’t afraid to share his knowledge but instead of
doing it in a way that bullies Sara and I, he ends up encouraging us to speak up, too.”
She slowly exhaled. She had to make her move today; it was now or never because this
project was dead in the water if she didn’t start acting like a leader. She looked at the list in front
of her: she’d start with the set of rules she’d written, then some better expectations for deadlines,
and finally, she was just going to remember to say no when Jerry began to accuse her of off-
loading the work he thought the leader was responsible. “I want to thank everyone for attending
today and begin by saying how much I appreciate all of the work each of you has contributed to
23
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
our assignment. However, because I want us to have a successful outcome, I think we should
begin with an honest discussion about how our work has progressed so far.”
Questions for Reflection
Until this meeting, has Jane demonstrated management or leadership of this team project?
What characteristics support your choice?
What type of power base is each group member exhibiting and will these power bases
affect the group’s overall effectiveness?
What transformational leadership behaviors should Jane use in order to correct the
imbalance in individual member power?
Conclusion
How an individual in a leadership role decides to utilize their power and influence can
largely determine the success or failure of a team or collaborative effort. Morale, motivation
performance, and satisfaction hinges upon how power is exercised, thereby influencing positive
or negative outcomes among team members. Early perspectives of power and influence within
teams and collaborative environments validated McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y, which suggested
at its most basic level that individuals want to work and they want to do their work well.
Research into participative management theory (Vroom and Yetton, 1973; Vroom and Jago,
1978; Margerison and Glube, 1979; Heilman et al, 1984; Field & House, 1990) gave credence to
the notion of involving subordinates in the decision making process. The benefits of leaders
using their positions power to influence psychological empowerment among their subordinates
emerged from this research. By the close of the twentieth-century psychological empowerment
was documented to increase productivity, customer service, organizational commitment and job
satisfaction.
24
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Transformational leaders exemplify the concept of psychological empowerment by
serving as an idealized influence or role model, providing inspirational motivation,
demonstrating individualized consideration, and offering intellectual stimulation (Kezar, 2006).
Power is utilized as a platform to influence team members to achieve their best. Similarly,
charismatic leaders utilize personal characteristics, such as communication skills and
compassion, as a resource to influence others towards greater levels of performance. Current
research into the characteristics and attributes of transformational leaders appears promising as
an avenue for the development of leadership training programs that could teach managers and
supervisors to use their power and influence more effectively (Kezar et al., 2006; Kim et al.,
2015).
Power and influence can be used to create positive outcomes for teams through
empowerment and transformational leadership. Positive outcomes of power and influence result
in empowered teams that are productive, have high morale, retain organizational commitment,
and perform at high levels. Power and influence can create negative impacts that have the
potential to destroy relationship among team members and result in project failure. Employee
turn-over is one of the most significant and detrimental impacts of negative influences stemming
from abuses in power. How leaders use power and influence matters in the sense project
outcomes, team morale, employee satisfaction, and organizational commitment are largely at
stake.
25
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
References
Agrusa, J., & Lema, J. D. (2007). An Examination of Mississippi Gulf Coast Casino
Management Styles with Implications for Employee Turnover. UNLV Gaming Research
& Review Journal, 11(1), 13-26.
Asif, M., Ayyub, S., & Bashir, M. K. (2014). Relationship between Transformational Leadership
Style and Organizational Commitment: Mediating Effect of Psychological
Empowerment. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1635(1), 703-707. doi:10.1063/1.4903659
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462.
Balls, A. (2003). The Flattening of Corporate Management. The National Bureau of Economic
Research. Retrieved July 21, 2016 from http://www.nber.org/digest/oct03/w9633.html
Barker, R. A. (2001). The Nature of Leadership. Human Relations, 54(4), 469-494.
Benschop, Y., & Doorewaard, H. (1998). Six of One and Half a Dozen of the Other: The Gender
Subtext of Taylorism and Team-based Work, Gender, work, and organization, 5(1), 5-18.
Borysenko, K. (2015, April 22). What Was Management Thinking? The High Cost Of Employee
Turnover, Eremedia. Retrieved July 15, 2016 from http://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/what-
was-leadership-thinking-the-shockingly-high-cost-of-employee-turnover/
Bruins, J. J., & Wilke, H. M. (1992). Cognitions and behaviour in a hierarchy: Mulder's power
theory revisited. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 22(1), 21-39.
Bruins, J. J., & Wilke, H.M. (1993). Upward power tendencies in a hierarchy: power distance
theory during bureaucratic rule. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 23(1), 239-254.
26
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Buddin, R. (2005). Success of First Term Soldiers: The Effects of Recruiting Practices and
Recruit Characteristics. Retrieved July 15, 2016 from http://www.rand.org/content/
dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG262.sum.pdf
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S.M. (2006). What type
of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly,
17(3), 288-307.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness. New York, NY:
Grove Press.
Bushe, G. R., Havlovic, S. J. & Coetzer, G. (1996) Exploring empowerment from the inside-out.
Journal for Quality and Participation, 19(2), 36-45.
Chia-Huei, W., & Zhen, W. (2015). How Transformational Leadership Shapes Team Proactivity:
The Mediating Role of Positive Affective Tone and the Moderating Role of Team Task
Variety. Group Dynamics, 19(3), 137-151. doi:10.1037/gdn0000027
Choi Y., & Dickson, D. R. (2010). A Case Study into the Benefits of Management Training
Programs: Impacts on Hotel Employee Turnover and Satisfaction Level. Journal Of
Human Resources In Hospitality & Tourism, 9(1), 103-116.
Cohen, S.G., & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from
the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academic of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
Cotton, J. (1994). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work
attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Van Vienan, A.E.M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309-
328.
Deschamps, C., Rinfret, N., Lagacé, M. C., & Privé, C. (2016). Transformational Leadership and
Change: How Leaders Influence Their Followers' Motivation Through Organizational
Justice. Journal Of Healthcare Management, 61(3), 194-212
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences
upon individual judgment. The Journal Of Abnormal And Social Psychology, 51(3).
Field, R. H. G. & House, R. J. (1990). A test of the Vroom-Yetton Model using manager and
subordinate reports. Applied Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 362-366.
Forsyth, D.R. (2004). Group Dynamics (4th ed). Wadsworth Publishing Co.: Belmont, CA. (pp.
485-521).
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander,
Group dynamics (pp. 150-167). New York: Harper & Row.
Giang, V. (2015, May 15). What kind of leadership is needed in flat hierarchies, Fast Company.
Retrieved June 22, 2016 from http://www.fastcompany.com/3046371/the-new-rules-of-
work/what-kind-of-leadership-is-needed-in-flat-hierarchies
Griffin, R. W. (1988). Consequences of quality circles in an industrial setting: A longitudinal
assessment. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 338-358.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Haque, U. (2016, February 3). Are You a Leader, or Just Pretending to Be One? Harvard
Business Review.
28
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Hellman, M. E., Hornstein, H. A., Cage, J. H., & Herzschlag, J. K. (1984). Reactions to
prescribed leader behavior as a function of role perspective: The case of the Vroom-
Yetton Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 50-60.
Hinkin, T R. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to
measure the French and Raven (1959) Bases of Social Power. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74(4), 561-567.
Holacracy (n.d.). Holacracy and Self-Organization Retrieved June 22, 2016 from
https://www.zapposinsights.com/about/holacracy
Houghton, D.P. (2015). Understanding Groupthink: The Case of Operation Market Garden.
Parameters, 45(3), 75-86.
Hurwitz, J. F. (1953). Some Effects of Power on the Relations among Group Members
Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. (2005). Power, Voice, and Hierarchy: Exploring the Antecedents of
Speaking Up in Groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(2), 93-103.
Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the "L" word in higher
education: The revolution in research on leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kim, S., & Fernandez, S. (2015). Employee Empowerment and Turnover Intention in the U.S.
Federal Bureaucracy. American Review of Public Administration 1–19
Kim, T., Liden, R., Kim, S., & Lee, D. (2015). The Interplay Between Follower Core Self-
Evaluation and Transformational Leadership: Effects on Employee Outcomes. Journal Of
Business & Psychology, 30(2), 345-355. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9364-7
Kirkman, B. L. & Rosen, B. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74.
29
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Klocke, U. (2009). ‘I Am the Best’: Effects of Influence Tactics and Power Bases on
Powerholders’ Self-Evaluation and Target Evaluation. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 12(5), 619–637.
Lawler, III, E. E. & Mohrman, S. A. (1987). Quality circles: After the honeymoon.
Organizational Dynamics, 15(4), 42-54.
Levi, D. (2001). Power and social influence. In Levi, D. Group dynamics for teams (pp. 133-
151). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.
Liu, S., & Liao, J. (2013). Transformational leadership and speaking up: power distance and
structural distance as moderators, Social Behavior and Personality, 41(10), 1747-1756
LRN Corporation. (2016). The how report: a global, empirical analysis of how governance,
culture and leadership impact performance. Retrieved June 22, 2016 from
http://howmetrics.lrn.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/HOW-REPORT-5-6-16.pdf
Margerison, C. Y Glube, R. (1979). Leadership decision-making: An empirical test of the Vroom
and Yetton Model. Journal of Management Studies, 16(1), 45-55
McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 61–89.
Mulder, M. (1977). The Daily Power Game. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
Munchus, III, G. (1983). Employer-employee based quality circles in Japan: Human resource
policy implications for American firms. Academy of Management Review, 892), 255-261.
Purvanova, R.K., & Bono, J.E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and
virtual teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 343-357.
30
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Randolph, W. A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics,
23, 19-32.
Randolph, W, & Kemery, E. (2011). Managerial Use of Power Bases in a Model of Managerial
Empowerment Practices and Employee Psychological Empowerment. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 95–106.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
Rowold, J., & Laukamp, L. (2009). Charismatic leadership and objective performance
indicators. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(4), 602-621.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00365.x
Stahl, G.K., and Sully de Luque, Mary. (2014). Antecedents of Responsible Leader Behavior: A
Research Synthesis, Conceptual Framework, and Agenda for Future Research. The
Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(3), 235-254.
Stavroulakis, D. (1995). Quality circle autonomy: Evidence from a Japanese subsidiary and a
Western subsidiary. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 14(2),
146-159.
Taylor, F.W. (1911) Scientific Management. London: Harper and Row.
Thompson, L.L. (2011). Making the team: A guide for managers. (4th ed). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tjosvold, D. (2006). Effects of power concepts and employee performance on managers’
empowering. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 27, 217-234.
Vandergriff, D. (2012). Raising the Bar. Middletown, DE: USNI Press.
Vroom, V. H. & Jago, A. G. (1978). On the validity of the Vroom-Yetton Model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 63(2), 151-162.
31
POWER AND INFLUENCE IN TEAM WORK
Watanabe, S. (1991). The Japanese quality control circle: Why it works. International Labour
Review, 130(1), 57-80.
Weisbord, M. (2012). Productive workplaces: dignity meaning, and community in the 21st
century, 3rd edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Wood, R., Hull, Frank, & Azumi, K. (1983). Evaluating quality circles: The American
Application. California Management Review, 26(1), 37-53.
32