Chapter Six

1. Chapter Six Leadership as an Influence Process

2. Figure 6.1The Leader Power—Follower Response Relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Assumptions UnderlyingExpectations • Respondents in the present study are in functioning groups • No competition or work-flow interdependence exists among group members

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

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

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

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

19. The Present Study • Hypotheses used in study 1 • H1 - A self-sacrificing leader elicits more cooperation than a self-benefiting leader • H2 - A self-sacrificing leader elicits more trust than a self-benefiting leader • H3 - Trust in the leader mediates the effect of self-sacrifice on cooperation • Hypotheses used in study 2 • H4 - A self-sacrificing leader promotes collective identification more than a self benefiting leader • H5 - Collective identification mediates the effect of self-sacrifice on cooperation

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

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