Fridgecom

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7720.htm Organizational values and social power Meni Koslowsky and Shmuel Stashevsky Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Abstract Purpose – Over the past decade, the social power taxonomy has been applied in many organizational contexts. This study aims to examine the issue of organizational values as antecedents of social power. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 187 Israeli MBA students participated in a study of power and values, as measured by organizational practices and behaviors. Findings – Findings indicated that soft power bases were preferred over harsh, as expected. In addition, support for the hypothesis of an interaction affect was obtained as charismatic leaders in a complex work environment used punishment very rarely. The findings were discussed in terms of the use in organizations of power strategies as a function of values. Originality/value – Although the main independent variables, organizational type (routine vs complex) and leadership style (transformational vs transactional), had each been studied independently, this was the first study of their interaction. Keywords Organizational behaviour, Transformational leadership, Transactional leadership, Social values Paper type Research paper Organizational values and social power 23 Introduction Regardless of organizational type, one of the main functions of an organization is to transfer expectations, advice, and rules of work from a supervisor/leader to a worker/subordinate. The antecedents, consequences, and process of this influencing process have been investigated in the broad area of I/O research referred to as social power. Often, the process involves some form of conflict where one party disagrees with the other. The effectiveness of the power strategies or tactics employed by the influencing agent on the target person has been studied as a function of personal, organizational, and cultural antecedents (Koslowsky and Schwarzwald, 1993; Raven and Kruglanski, 1970). The work by French and Raven (1959) that has been modified and expanded on many times by the authors and others over the years provides a very useful and effective model for understanding the process. Before detailing the model of Raven, some clarification of terminology would be useful. Although social power and influence connote similar concepts in the literature, investigators have applied the following distinction in their research. The former refers to the potential sources available to an individual for influencing another person to comply and the latter describes the specific tactics explicitly used to gain target compliance. Thus, if a supervisor is interested in changing a subordinate’s behavior and the subordinate is reluctant to comply, he or she may, nevertheless, obey the order because of the actual application of a specific tactic such as reward or because he or she believes that the supervisor has the potential to reward. The actual exercise of power tactics is considered “influence” whereas the potential to exercise power refers to “power”. International Journal of Manpower Vol. 26 No. 1, 2005 pp. 23-34 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7720 DOI 10.1108/01437720510587253 IJM 26,1 24 Originally, French and Raven (1959) identified five categories of tactics: (1) Coercive power – threat of punishment. (2) Reward power – promise of monetary and/or non-monetary compensation. (3) Legitimate power – drawing on one’s right to influence. (4) Expert power – relying on one’s superior knowledge. (5) Referent power – based on target’s identification with influencing agent. Informational power was then included as another source of power (Raven, 1965; 1983). In a seminal article on the subject, Podsakoff and Schriesheim (1985) identified several substantive and methodological problems with the concept delineated by French and Raven. Thus, several of their categories were not viewed as clearly distinct from one another, terms were sometimes vague, and, research often did not seem to validate the theory. One issue that bothered the critics was the fact that power tactics are often used in tandem (e.g. expert power and reference). In other words, the specific category wasn’t as important as the combination of tactics that were used by influencing agents. Thus, Yukl and Tracy (1992) identified a nine-factor taxonomy (rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, consultation, negotiation, exchange, personal appeal, collision, legitimating, and pressure) of power tactics which had many features of French and Raven but seemed to allow for more consideration of potential overlap. As a response to these criticisms, Raven (1992, 1993) proposed an expanded and more detailed model, the Interpersonal Power Interaction Model (IPIM). Based on research over the years, it was clear that further differentiation among some of these tactics was required. Coercion and reward were divided into four categories: (1) Impersonal coercion – threat of punishment. (2) Personal coercion – threat of disapproval or dislike. (3) Impersonal reward – promise of monetary or non-monetary compensation. (4) Personal reward – promise to like or approve. Legitimate power was divided into four categories: (1) Legitimate reciprocity – the request is based on the agent having done something positive for the target. (2) Legitimate equity – the request is based on compensating for either hard work or sufferance by the agent or harm inflicted by the target. (3) Legitimate dependence – the request is based on social responsibility to assist another who is in need. (4) Legitimate position – the request is attributed to the right one has because of status or position. The Raven model was used to develop a scale, the Interpersonal Power Inventory (IPI) (Raven et al., 1998) that uses 33 items for measuring compliance to 11 power bases. Moreover, the study findings indicated that power bases are not independent and two underlying factors, “soft” and “harsh” were identified. The soft factor included the following power bases: expert, referent, information, and legitimacy of dependence. The harsh factor included personal and impersonal coercion, personal and impersonal reward, legitimacy of position, equity, and reciprocity. One strategy, legitimacy of position, loaded relatively highly on the second factor, too. The overall distinction is consistent with the thinking of Hunt (1984) who viewed French and Raven’s bases for social power as representing personal power bases (reference, expertise), often associated with leaders, and position power (reward, coercion, legitimacy) usually identified with supervisors. In addition to expanding the number of power strategies, Raven also included within the influencing process, a list of exogenous predictors and antecedents that help determine which social power tactics are used in a specific situation. Much of the research in this area over the past decade has examined individual difference variables such as gender, power distance between supervisor and subordinate, type of conflict, and personality trait (Koslowsky et al., 2001). For example, a supervisor with low self-esteem may prefer to use harsh strategies more frequently than a high self-esteem one as the former may not have much confidence in himself/herself. By choosing harsh over soft, the individual is able to raise his/her poor self-image (Kipnis, 1976; Raven et al., 1982) as the subordinate is required to follow the rules whether in agreement or not. For such individuals, the “power” provided by using such strategies is satisfying and, therefore, preferred. In the present study, we propose to examine the issue of organizational values as antecedents of social power. Values in the context of the world of work can be divided into two broad areas. One emphasizes the values associated with specific jobs and are often studied in the context of worker moods and attitudes. Another aspect of value focuses on the organization and aims its scientific inquiry on management goals and the behavioral means for achieving them. The I/O literature considers management style, culture and climate as components of the values that are specific to an organization. According to James and James (1989), the worker perceptions of the environment are a function of the value systems. According to this approach, understanding the perceived climate within the organization provides insight into a worker’s value system that, in turn, becomes part of one’s well-being and helps an organization achieve and maintain its goals (Jones and Jones, 2002). To achieve these goals often require the exercise of social power. Again, the environment determines the values. For example, in a prison setting, the goal is to keep the peace and provide for the basic needs and the learning of certain useful skills on the part of the inmates, and sanctions of various types may be viewed as legitimate. The prisoner must learn to adapt and follow the rules the organization has set up. In a manufacturing firm, a different set of rules is learned. As management realizes that satisfaction on the part of worker and shareholder is an essential goal, techniques such as communication and persuasion may be used. Values are not constant and have different meanings and importance across a wide spectrum of organizations and functions within an organization. The process and means used by management to gain compliance from its workers can be viewed as a correlate or, even, product of organizational values. If a worker feels that he/she is not being treated fairly or is being told to do something against his/her will, a negative attitude towards the organization, followed by poor performance or even turnover may ensue. How does the worker react to a request (or order) to behave in a particular fashion' Does he/she feel that there was no alternative or not' Was there a sanction involved in non-compliance or was it simply a strong suggestion' Two studies examining different aspects of the organizational climate with its concomitant values have been examined in the context of the expanded model of Organizational values and social power 25 IJM 26,1 26 Raven: organization type and leadership. In a seminal series of studies that spawned much research in the I/O field, Mintzberg (1979, 1983a, 1983b) identified five types of organizations including: (1) simple structure; (2) machine bureaucracy (machine bureaucracy); (3) professional bureaucracy; (4) adhocracy; and (5) divisional structure. The first two constitute a flat organizational design, where the worker is expected to do similar work each day. The structure in these cases does permit different degree of specialization yet power and decision making reside at the supervisor or managerial level. In the others, decision power is often arrived at in consultation with individual workers. Using a modified version of this categorization, Schwarzwald et al. (2004) showed that in organizational environments where routine tasks (supermarkets, postal delivery, etc.) predominate, harsh tactics were used significantly more frequently than in organization where complex tasks are the rule (hi-tech firms, hospital settings, etc.). The following mechanism for explaining this relationship was proposed. It is reasonable to assume that the kind of work commonly associated with each organization tends to facilitate the use of specific power strategies. In organizational environments where routine and repetitive tasks are the rule, supervisors do not expect subordinates to make many critical decisions. The satisfied worker in this setting learns to value the fact that he/she will be evaluated pretty much by following orders and not by being creative, innovative, or changing course from that which is expected. Consequently, supervisors do not develop a high appreciation for subordinates’ opinions, often leading them to prefer a “tight” managerial style. This style is best accomplished by employing harsh tactics. In contrast, where complex tasks are the rule, subordinate opinions are appreciated and, more importantly, they are expected to become part of the decision making process. Workers value their independence and, often, need to chart their own course. Supervisors, who recognize this value in their workers, use a “loose” or egalitarian managerial style that is best characterized by soft strategies. Harsh strategies, here, would be counterproductive. Another aspect of management behavior, leadership style, was examined by comparing transformational and transactional leaders (Avolio and Bass, 1995; Bass, 1981). Previous research has indicated the superiority of transformational leadership in achieving several organizational criteria such as performance level, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and citizenship behavior (e.g. Avolio and Bass, 1995). Schwarzwald and Koslowsky (2001) reported that high transformational leaders even when resorting to harsh bases can expect compliance in conflict situations or in circumstances requiring immediate action, where soft bases may be less efficient. As such, subordinates are willing to comply even when the power bases are considered atypical of the leadership style. Stated differently, compliance is not only related to the power base per se but appears also to be influenced by the way captains relate to them in the course of the workday. For gaining compliance, the transformational leader is at an advantage, even when resorting to harsh power tactics. In such circumstances, the subordinate, apparently, does not judge the leader negatively but rather attributes the harsh approach to the leader’s pressing needs. For example, if an emergency were to arise, a subordinate is likely to comply with a harsh tactic, as he/she perceives this to be the exception to the rule. The findings are consistent with the notion that leadership is a process that develops over time rather than through a single interaction (Hollander, 1992; Avolio and Bass, 1995). Over time, subordinates try to make sense of their leaders’ behaviors and develop expectancies (Eden, 1990). Transactional leaders demonstrate a predominant concern for getting the task accomplished and are not particularly interested in followers’ needs. By contrast, transformational leaders, continuously show concern for subordinate needs, treat them with respect and employ a flexible orientation towards them. This does not necessarily mean that the transformational leader never resorts to punishment or negative feedback. When these behaviors are indeed used, they are perceived or may be interpreted as exceptional and required for completing the present task. In other words, what might be viewed as harsh and inconsiderate behavior for the transactional leader may very well be interpreted as utilitarian or necessary for the transformational leader. For the present paper, we examined the relationship between power strategies, organizational type, and leadership style. All three had not been examined simultaneously previously. Hypotheses According to the above, four hypotheses were formulated: H1. Overall, mangers prefer soft strategies to harsh ones. H2. In routine environments, as compared to complex ones, managers use harsh strategies more frequently. H3. Transactional leaders, as compared to transformational ones, use harsh strategies more frequently. H4. The least amount of soft strategies are expected from transactional leaders in routine environments. Method Participants The participants were 187 Israeli MBA students which represented a response rate of about 85 percent. Sample characteristics The sample was 51 percent males with a mean age of 29 (ranging from 22-43). All participants were in their last year of an MBA program and 93 percent were working. Measures Respondents were interviewed by means of a written questionnaire. The following questions were included: Try to imagine either your present job or, if you are not working, your last one. Assume your boss wanted you to do something with which you disagreed. How would he/she try to convince you to do it his/her way' Organizational values and social power 27 IJM 26,1 Below are three columns. In the first column is a list of different methods that could be used by your boss to convince you to do it his/her way. In column 2, check off what you think was the most likely method for him/her to use. In column 3, check off what was the least likely method for him/her to use. In columns 4 and 5 and using the list below, write down your particular work environment and leadership style (Table I). 28 Type of work. Was the work predominantly: routine work (e.g. sales, clerical etc.); or complex work: confronting new situations constantly (e.g. hi-tech, research and development, etc.)' Leadership style. Was the leadership style of your boss: task-oriented – where failure to reach goals is often followed by sanctions; or charismatic – a leader who employs intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration for reaching his/her goals' Data analysis Using the crosstabs feature in SPSS, the frequencies of the most and the least common power strategies used by each one of the leadership styles and each one of the work types was determined. Then, we applied x2 tests of independence in order to evaluate potential differences of applying the various power strategies in routine and complex work and in task-oriented and charismatic leadership styles. Results Tables II-IV present the results of the cross-tab tables with the frequencies of the most and the least common power strategies used by each one of the leadership styles and Leadership style of your boss Social power 1. 2. 3. 4. Information Expertise Rewards Threat of punishment Most likely Least likely Type of work Table I. Notes: Information ¼ providing convincing reasons or supporting evidence; Expertise=relying on one’s superior knowledge and experience; Rewards=promise to reward, promise to pay, promise to promote, etc; Threat of punishment=threat to sanction by taking away one’s pay, not promoting, etc. Total sample (%) Most common power strategy Soft bases Harsh bases Least common power strategy Table II. Power strategy usage of the total sample Soft bases Harsh bases Notes: n = 187 (values are in percentages) Information Expertise Reward Punishment Information Expertise Reward Punishment 38 53 3 6 4 6 12 78 Leadership style Charismatic Task-oriented (47 percent of the (53 percent of the sample) sample) (%) (%) Soft bases Information Expertise Harsh bases Reward Punishment 4 10 7.5 7.5 17 68 6 89 1 4 1 3 Soft bases Information Expertise Harsh bases Reward Punishment 28 58 51 45 38 52 5 5 2 5 12 81 Work type Complex Routine (76 percent of the (24 percent of the sample) sample) (%) (%) 38 54 2 6 5 5 12 78 Most common power strategy Least common power strategy Note: n = 187 Organizational values and social power 29 Table III. Power strategies usage by leadership style and by work type 30 IJM 26,1 Most common power strategy Harsh bases Soft bases Harsh bases Least common power strategy Note: n = 187 Table IV. Power strategies usage by each work type and leadership style Work type Leadership style Soft bases Information Expertise Reward Punishment Information Expertise Reward Punishment 36 52 4 8 0 8 8 84 41 53 6 0 6 0 18 76 Routine Task-oriented Charismatic (%) (%) Complex Task-oriented Charismatic (%) (%) 23 63 5 9 11 6 22 61 54 43 0 3 0 5 3 92 each one of the work types. In Table III, the analysis is performed on leadership type and work type separately and in Table IV the analysis is leadership style within work type. The most common power strategy used by the respondents’ bosses in order to convince them to do something with which they disagreed is expertise for 53 percent of the total respondents, information for 38 percent, punishment for 6 percent, and reward for 3 percent of the total respondents. Therefore, soft strategies, as reported here and consistent with all of our previous work, are by far the most common technique used by the respondents’ bosses to gain compliance. Soft strategies were the most common power strategies for 91 percent of the total respondents as compared to 9 percent for harsh strategies. The least common power strategy used by the respondents’ bosses in order to convince them to do something with which they disagreed is punishment for 78 percent of the total respondents, reward for 12 percent, expertise for 6 percent, and information for 4 percent of the total respondents. Therefore, harsh strategies are by far the least common strategies used by the respondents’ bosses. Harsh strategies were the least common power strategies for 90 percent of the total respondents as compared to 10 percent for soft bases strategies. We applied x2 tests of independence in order to evaluate potential differences among the usage of various power strategies in routine and complex work and in task-oriented and charismatic leadership styles. We have contingency tables that have four rows (the four power strategies) and two columns (the two work types: routine and complex in one table, and the two leadership styles: task-oriented and charismatic in the other table). (1) For the difference between the two leadership types on the most common strategies, the test of independence was significant, x2 (3) ¼ 12.78, p , 0.005. (2) For the difference between the two leadership types on the least common strategies, the test of independence was significant, x2 (3) ¼ 11.95, p , 0.008. (3) For the difference between the two work types on the most common strategies, the test of independence was not significant, x2 (3) ¼ 0.78, ns. (4) For the difference between the two work types on the least common strategies, the test of independence was not significant, x2 (3) ¼ 0.63, ns. (5) For the difference between the two leadership styles in routine work for the most common power strategies, the test of independence was not significant, x2 (3) ¼ 1.51, ns. (6) For the difference between the two leadership styles in routine work for the least common power strategies, the test of independence was not significant, x2 (3) ¼ 3.69, ns. (7) For the difference between the two leadership styles in complex work for the most common power strategies, the test of independence was significant, x2 (3) ¼ 0.001. (8) For the difference between the two leadership styles in complex work for the least common power strategies, the test of independence was significant, x2 (3) ¼ 20.50, p , 0.001. Organizational values and social power 31 IJM 26,1 Based on these results, all hypotheses except for the second one were confirmed. Contrary to expectations, the managers in routine environments did not use harsh strategies more frequently than their counterparts in complex ones. Discussion From the present data, we can infer that there is a significant relationship between power strategy and the two leadership styles – task-oriented and charismatic – in a complex work environment. Examination of the frequencies in Table IV shows that expertise is the most commonly used power strategy by task-oriented leaders, whereas information is the most commonly used power strategy by charismatic leaders. Punishment is the least commonly used strategy for both leadership styles. However, charismatic leaders in a complex work environment use punishment very rarely, as 92 percent of this group of respondents stated that punishment is the least common power strategy as compared to 61 percent of subjects among task-oriented leaders. The fact that social power and organizational variables are related is quite compatible with Raven’s (1992, 1993) understanding of power. Yet, his model also emphasizes personal variables. Indeed, most of the research in the field has focused on identifying power wielder variables such as gender, self-esteem, and many others. A rational follow-up of our findings here would try to combine the two types of variables, individual and organizational, and examine possible interactions. Would women managers in a routine organizational environment resort more to soft strategies (consistent with the gender) or harsh strategies (consistent with the environment)' Similarly, if low self-esteem people prefer harsh strategies, would they change their preference in a complex environment' Similar questions can be examined in various personal X situational interactions. One interesting approach that combines these concepts into one variable was taken by Matteson and Ivancevich (1982). They argued that organizations can be classified as either type A (characterized by among other traits as forceful, competitive, excitable) or type B (reaching out, friendly, laissez-faire). The importance of such a distinction has direct relevance to our research, as it would seem that the use of power could vary by organizational personality. The more the organization displays type A personality traits, the less likely it is to use soft power strategies to achieve its goals. In summary, researchers armed with the Raven formulation now have a tool that will allow them to test and compare findings with an agreed on standard. From the present analysis, it does appear that managers use power strategies as a function of certain organizational values that were defined here by the type of work in the organization and the leadership style. We have chosen just two of many possible variables and their accompanying theories that are related to social power. More research will better help map out the process that leads from the influencing agent attempt to influence to the target’s eventual compliance. References Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1995), “Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: a multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 199-218. Bass, B.M. (1981), Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership, rev. ed., Free Press, New York, NY. 32 Eden, D. (1990), “Pygmalion without interpersonal contrast effects – whole groups gain from raising manager expectations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 394-8. French, J.R.P. Jr and Raven, B.H. (1959), “The bases of social power”, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in Social Power, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. Hollander, E.P. (1992), “The essential interdependence of leadership and followership”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 71-5. Hunt, J.G. (1984), “Leadership and managerial behavior”, in Rosenzweig, J.E. and Caste, F.E. (Eds), Modules in Management, Science Research Associates, Chicago, IL. James, L.A. and James, L.R. (1989), “Integrating work environment perceptions: explorations into the measurement of meaning”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 739-51. Jones, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (2002), Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kipnis, D. (1976), The Powerholders, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Koslowsky, M. and Schwarzwald, J. (1993), “The use of power tactics to gain compliance: testing aspects of Raven’s (1988) theory in conflictual situations”, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-44. Koslowsky, M., Schwarzwald, J. and Ashuri, S. (2001), “On the relationship between subordinate’s compliance to power sources and organizational attitudes”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 455-76. Matteson, M.T. and Ivancevich, J.M. (1982), “Type A and B behavior patterns and self-reported health symptoms and stress: examining individual and organizational fit”, Journal of Occupational Medicine, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 585-9. Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mintzberg, H. (1983a), Power in and around Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mintzberg, H. (1983b), Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Podsakoff, P.M. and Schriesheim, C.A. (1985), “Field studies of French and Raven’s bases of power: critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 387-411. Raven, B.H. (1965), “Social influence and power”, in Steiner, D. and Fishbein, M. (Eds), Current Studies in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY. Raven, B.H. (1983), “Interpersonal influence and social power”, in Raven, B.H. and Rubin, J.Z. (Eds), Social Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 399-444. Raven, B.H. (1992), “A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 217-44. Raven, B.H. (1993), “The bases of power: origins and recent developments”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 227-51. Raven, B.F. and Kruglanski, A.W. (1970), “Conflict and power”, in Swingle, P.G. (Ed.), The Structure of Conflict, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 69-109. Raven, B.H., Freeman, H.E. and Haley, R.W. (1982), “Social science perspectives in hospital infection control”, in Johnson, A.W., Grusky, O. and Raven, B.H. (Eds), Contemporary Health Services: Social Science Perspectives, Auburn House, Boston, MA. Raven, B.H., Schwarzwald, J. and Koslowsky, M. (1998), “Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 307-22. Organizational values and social power 33 IJM 26,1 34 Schwarzwald, J. and Koslowsky, M. (2001), “Captain’s leadership type and police officers’ compliance to power bases”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 273-90. Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M. and Ochana-Levin, T. (2004), “Usage of and compliance with power tactics in routine versus non-routine work settings”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 385-402. Yukl, G. and Tracy, J.B. (1992), “Consequences of influence bases used with subordinates, peers, and the boss”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 525-35. Further reading Ehrlich, H.K. (1973), The Social Psychology of Prejudice, Wiley, New York, NY.