Top Banner

of 17

Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

Feb 19, 2018

Download

Documents

cmgarun
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    1/17

    431NM L, vol. 25, no. 4, Summer 2015 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nml.21132

    Journal sponsored bythe Jack, Joseph andMorton Mandel School of AppliedSocial Sciences, CaseWestern ReserveUniversity.

    Correspondence to: Diana E. Krause, Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt, Human Resource Management, Leadershipand Organizational Behavior, University Street 6567, 9020 Klagenfurt Austria. E-mail: [email protected].

    Four ypes of Leadershipand Orchestra Quality

    Diana E. Krause

    Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt

    This study analyzes the effects of a conductors power-based leadership on orchestra qual-

    ity. The structure of power-based leadership and the hypotheses were tested with a sample

    of musicians from German orchestras. Confirmatory factor analyses verify four types of

    power-based leadership of the conductor vis--vis the musicians: (1) expert/referent power,

    (2) informational power, (3) legitimate power through position, and (4) impersonal and

    personal reward and coercive power. The relative importance of the four forms of power-

    based leadership on artistic quality was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM).The results supported the hypotheses that expert power and referent power have the strongest

    positive impact on artistic quality than all other forms of power-based leadership under

    study. Contributions to theories of leadership and power, research methods, and practice

    are discussed.

    Keywords:leadership, power, power bases, artistic quality, orchestra

    Introduction: Previous Investigationson Leadership in Orchestras

    Research on leadership in orchestras has been silent (Boerner and Gebert 2012, 347, Hunt,Stelluto, and Hooijberg 2004, 148; Koivunen and Wennes 2011, 53). o date, there havebeen only a handful studies that investigate the impact of different forms of leadership attrib-utes (who the leader is) and leadership behaviors (what the leader does) of an orchestra con-ductor on the musicians and/or the artistic performance of the orchestra (Allmendinger andHackman 1994; Atik 1994; Boerner and Krause 2002; Boerner, Krause, and Gebert 2001,

    2004; Boerner and von Streit 2007; Koivunen 2003; Koivunen and Wennes 2011; Kping2007; Ladkin 2008; Rowold and Rohmann 2009). Tese studies use different conceptual-izations of leadership and different approaches (see Atik 1994) to analyze the phenomenonof leadership in the orchestra context. For example, the classical study by Allmendinger andHackman (1994) has shown (among other things) that the well-being of orchestra musiciansincreases if leadership is existent and constructive. Tis result is important because researchhas documented that the general satisfaction of musicians (Allmendinger and Hackman1995) as well as their specific satisfaction with compensation, growth opportunities, and

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    2/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    432 KRAUSE

    work relationships is relatively low (Allmendinger and Hackman 1996), and that manyorchestra musicians suffer from performance anxiety expressed in a lack of confidence, worry,emotionality, and physical symptoms (Langendrfer et al. 2006).

    Using a qualitative approach (newspaper articles, archival data, and interviews) combined withaesthetic analysis, Koivunen and Wennes (2011) describe three key leadership dimensionsof a conductor: relational listening, aesthetic judgment, and kinesthetic empathy. Relationallisteningis understood as a natural talent of the conductor, which can also be developed and

    which requires knowledge, experience, and presence in every single moment and full concentra-tion by the conductor. Te authors describe aesthetic judgmentas an opinion that depends onsensuous perception of the conductor and that includes the evaluation of the whole sound ofall instrumental groups. Tis aesthetic judgment becomes manifest in the conductors visionand interpretation of the music, which needs to be (nonverbally) communicated to the musi-cians. Kinesthetic empathyrefers to the conductors nonverbal behaviors to transform his orher interpretation of the score into shared action by using gestures, body movements, or facial

    expressions. Based on case study approach, Ladkin (2008) recommends three fundamentals forleadership in the music domain: mastery, congruence between form and content, and purpose.

    Compared to the aesthetic analysis of leadership in orchestras and in line with the traditionaltrait approach of leadership (see Yukl 2012), another body of research focuses on certainattributes of a conductor that might be crucial for artistic performance. Outstanding conduc-tors are described as charismatic, visionary, inspirational, competent, enthusiastic, heroic,grandiose, demanding, strict, autocratic, despotic, and/or credible (Atik 1994; Hunt et al.2004; Kping 2007; Marotto, Roos, and Victor 2007; Weick, Gilfillan, and Keith 1973).

    Other studies focus on what the conductor does and analyze the effects of transactional,

    transformational, or directive-charismatic leadership behaviors in orchestras.1For example,Rowold and Rohmann (2009) investigated the role of transformational and transactionalleadership on subjective performance criteria (musicians satisfaction, their extra effort, andtheir assessment of the conductors effectiveness) in nonprofit orchestras that consideredmusicians positive and negative emotions. Tey found that transformational leadership as

    well as transactional leadership behaviors promote performance, and that musicians positiveemotions contribute to performance indicators whereas negative emotions do not.

    Following the transformational leadership approach in orchestras, Boerner and von Streit(2007) confirmed an interaction effect of selected facets of transformational leadership(charisma, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation) and musicians positive

    group mood on orchestra performance. According to Boerner and Gebert (2012), the func-tionality of a conductors transformational leadership behaviors on artistic performance canbe explained by two mechanisms: transformational leadership fosters the positive effect ofensemble diversity on ideagenerationand simultaneously decreases the negative effect ofensemble diversity on idea integration.

    Moreover, it has been empirically documented that the conductors directive leadership styleis functional to the orchestras success (Boerner et al. 2001) especially ifat the same timethe musicians perceive the conductor as an indisputable authority (Boerner and Krause2002). Because of the high interdependency of tasks and the related high demands concern-ing the coordination of processes (Saavedra, Earle, and Van Dyne 1993), external coordina-

    tion through the conductor is central in larger orchestras. his statement is valid for theinterplay within the instrumental groups (for example, first and second violins) as well as for

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    3/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    FOUR YPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESRA QUALIY 433

    the interplay among the instrumental groups (woodwind, violins, violoncello, double bass,brass, percussion, harp). Contrariwise, a decentralized self-coordination of the musicians

    would lead both to time-consuming conflicts concerning the artistic standards that need tobe achieved and to inaccuracies in the synchronization of playing, and might thus affect the

    artistic quality negatively. Terefore, in larger orchestras a centralized coordination througha conductor is needed (Boerner and Gebert 2012; Boerner and von Streit 2007). Tus, theperformance of classical music in a larger orchestra differs from the performance of jazzmusic where decentral improvisation (Kamoche and e Cunha 2001) is crucial for the rightgroove live on stage (Hatch and Weick 1998).

    Te results of earlier studies (Boerner et al. 2001; Boerner and Krause 2002) lead to the ques-tion on which forms of power the authority, the transformational, or the charismatic-directiveleadership behaviors of a conductor are based upon and which consequences these types ofpower have on orchestra quality. As impressively pointed out by Canetti (1998, 468), Tereis no better expression for power than the work of a conductor. In other words, Tere is no

    doubt that the conductor is a powerful figureboth in front of a symphony orchestra, and asa popular metaphor for authority and good management (Koivunen and Wennes 2011, 58).Nevertheless, research on conductors leadership through different forms of power vis--visthe musicians and its consequences for leadership outcome criteria such as orchestra quality israre. It is unclear which power bases the conductor relies on, and how the conductors exertionof the various bases of power may influence the artistic quality of the orchestra.

    Aims of the Present Studyhis study builds on previous studies on leadership in orchestras and analyzes what the

    forms of power used by conductors are and to what extent the use of different types of powerpromotes artistic quality of orchestras. Te present article intends to contribute to previ-ous investigations on leadership in orchestras in three ways. First and foremost, this studyfocuses on orchestra quality. Tis specific focus is substantial because (1) there is evidencethat the effects of leadership vary depending on the emphasized outcome criteria (Hilleret al. 2011) and (2) the effects of different types of power vary depending on the accentuatedoutcomes (Elangovan and Xie 2000). Terefore, a detailed analysis of the consequences offorms of power in the orchestra context is needed. Second, the conceptualization of conduc-tors leadership behaviors differs from previous research on leadership in orchestras. As brieflydescribed previously, most research exclusively studied the role of transactional, transforma-

    tional, or charismatic-directive leadership in orchestras. However, there is reason to assumethat leadership described in terms of the use of power has different effects on orchestra qual-ity compared to other leadership behaviors. Tird, hypotheses are developed that predict theleadership outcomethe artistic quality of the orchestra performancedepending on thepower bases that the conductor uses vis--vis the musicians. Tis study examines the exercis-ing of power in a new context, leading an orchestra. It differs from previous power researchin two respects: (1) the hitherto existing findings in the field of power research are separatedfrom those described here through the investigation of the structure of the individual powerbases in the orchestra; (2) research on power is expanded as the functionality of the conduc-tors power use is empirically documented. Tis study differs from traditional power research(see Yukl 2012) because leadership is linked to power, and the outcome of power-based lead-

    ership (Krause 2004; 2011) is applied to a new context, the artistic domain. Finally, implica-tions for leadership and power theories, research methods, and practice are derived.

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    4/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    434 KRAUSE

    Power-Based Leadership as Antecedentof Orchestra Quality

    Te conductors power is his or her ability to influence a musician insofar as the musician is

    doing something which he or she would not do otherwise (Dahl 1957, 202). A conduc-tor exerts power to achieve his or her particular interpretation of a composition (Krause andBoerner 2001). Tis is necessary because the artistic production process involves conflicts. Asthe musicians imaginations of the correct interpretation of a composition differ, task con-flicts (De Dreu and Weingart 2003) are likely to emerge. However, to achieve high artisticquality, a coherent interpretation shared by all musicians is required.

    In the orchestra, dissent over various interpretations is not regulable through mutual consentbut rather through a central leading conductor (Boerner and Krause 2002). Trough theestablishment of power, the conductor realizes a coherent interpretation of a certain scoreand coordinates various sections within the orchestra (Khodyakov 2007). Te conductor isresponsible for the entire musical score, whereas the orchestra musicians have the notes onlyfor their own instruments. Te conductor is in charge to ensure a unified and coordinatedperformance. In this process, power and control in the conductormusician relationship areimportant because the conductor determines the goal, the way of achieving it, and the musi-cians have to follow the conductors vision (Khodyakov 2007). In doing so, the conductorcan use various power bases that are classified differently in the literature (for example, Cart-

    wright 1965; French and Raven 1959; Mintzberg 1983; Pfeffer 1981). In the current typol-ogy of power bases by Raven (1992) and Raven, Schwarzwald, and Koslowsky (1998), elevenpower bases are distinguished on a theoretical level: impersonal reward; personal reward;impersonal coercive power; personal coercive power; position power; legitimate power

    through (1) reciprocity norm, (2) equity norm, or (3) the social responsibility norm (powerof the powerless); referent power; expert power; and informational power. Empirically, theseeleven power bases were not reproduced. Factor analyses rather showed seven surface factorsand two source factors (Raven et al. 1998).

    In the following, the relevance of selected power bases used by the conductor to lead themusicians is investigated. Te central argument of this article is that the use of expert powerand referent power is more functional for the artistic quality of the orchestra than the useof all other types of power. Te rationale for this argument lies in the fact that the orchestramusicians perceive themselves to be artists who do not pursue careers but rather follow theircalling (Boerner and Krause 2002). Orchestral musicians are highly trained and skilled

    persons (Hunt et al. 2004) who are experts for their specific instruments. Crucial for the playof the musicians is their intrinsic motivation (Langendrfer et al. 2006). If intrinsic motiva-tion is high, the task will be performed because the task itself is enjoyable and not becauseof anticipated consequences. Te importance of high intrinsic motivation and the combinedflow experience (Csikszentmihalyi and Lefevre 1989) is documented for the orchestra context(Kping 2007). If the intrinsic motivation of the musicians is low, negative secondary effectshave to be expected. In this constellation, the musicians assume the conductors conception,not out of conviction, but rather only half-heartedly or as a work-to-rulewith corre-sponding consequences for orchestras quality.

    According to Amabile et al. (1994), intrinsic motivation has two facets, namely, challengeand enjoyment. Te conductors use of power vis--vis the musicians reduces the musiciansdegrees of freedom and can jeopardize their intrinsic motivation. Te reduction of the artistic

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    5/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    FOUR YPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESRA QUALIY 435

    freedom is associated with lower degrees of challenge and enjoyment. In addition to chal-lenge and enjoyment, a task is intrinsically motivating if the task is assessed as meaningfuland valuable (Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl 1999). Such an assessment is more likely if thecontent of the task is congruent with the personal value system of the musicians. If the musi-

    cians perceive the conductors artistic conception as meaningful and valuable, their intrinsicmotivation will be high.

    Against this backdrop, the significance of expert power becomes understandable. Te attribu-tion of strong expert power to the conductor by the musicians is a condition for the musi-cians experience of challenge and their perception that the conductors artistic conceptionis meaningful and valuable. Expert power is based on the musicians perception of the con-ductors abilities, knowledge, and/or skills. Expert power refers to what Ladkin (2008) callsmastery. Te conductor is considered a highly trained professional by the musicians whenthey believe that the conductor masters the artistic and technical possibilities and limits ofall the instruments in the orchestra, as well as their combined performance, while the musi-

    cian is, as a rule, only an expert in his or her own instrument. Te conductor can not onlyassess the interaction of the instruments better than the musician; he or she is in the positionto develop an artistic conception for the whole orchestra, as well as able to diagnose and cor-rect errors during the realization of this conception. o reach a coherent interpretation of themusic, it is important that the conductor communicates his or her message nonverbally in aclear manner to the musicians (Atik 1994). Conversely, if the musicians perceive the conduc-tor as an incompetent leader, they often ignore his or her gestures and instructions (Bathurstand Ladkin 2012).

    Strong referent power increases the likelihood that the conductors artistic conception is inline with the personal value system held by the musicians. A conductor exercises referent

    power if he or she serves as a positive role model for the musician, that is, as someone whomthe musician perceives to be, for example, reliable, charismatic, or attractive.

    Yet, a conductor influences a musician through impersonal rewards, in that he or she explic-itly praises the orchestral musician (see Atik 1994) for artistic achievements, supports him orher emotionally, and provides attention or personal recognition. Contrariwise, a conductorexercises impersonal coercive power when he or she reprimands a musician in front of his orher colleagues, or criticizes, defames, or ignores him or her. A conductor uses power throughpersonal reward if he or she, for example, acts as a positive influence on future instrumenta-tion or castings. Contrary to this, negative influence on the musicians career opportunitiesdenotes personal coercive power. Te exercise of impersonal reward or coercive power will

    have a lower impact on the musicians intrinsic motivation compared to the use of expertpower and referent power. Te use of personal reward or coercive power would endanger themusicians intrinsic motivation because reward and coercive power contradict the self-conceptof a musician as an artist. Trough reward and coercive power, no persuasion of the orchestramusician is achieved but rather merely a perfunctory willingness (obedience).

    Legitimate power is based on the conviction of the orchestral musicians that the conduc-tor legitimately has the right to request something from the musicians, based upon variousvalues and norms that the orchestral musicians have internalized or have particular require-ments, and the musicians comply with these expectations. In the orchestra the reciprocitynorm, the equity norm, or the norm of social responsibility is less dealt with, rather generally

    accepted positions within the orchestra (called position power or legitimate power throughposition). Te conductors use of legitimate power on the basis of position takes place when

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    6/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    436 KRAUSE

    the musicians feel bound by their roles as orchestral members to comply with the conductorsvision. In this case the orchestral musician complies with the conductors instructions simplybecause he or she is the conductor. Te use of position power will not have a great influenceon the musicians intrinsic motivation because position power is not directly associated with

    the content of the musicians task itself.

    Informational power is based on information that the conductor relays to the musician.With the exertion of informational power, the musician can review and comprehend theadequacy and relevance of this information, which is not always possible when the conductoruses expert power. A conductor exercises informational power when he or she, for example,explains the historical performance practice of a composition or demonstrates the reasonsfor necessary changes in interpretation. If the conductor uses informational power, the musi-cians perception of the value of the artistic conception will be lower compared to the use ofexpert power and referent power. Te reason is that informational power provides merely elu-cidation without considering the emotionality inherent in playing music.

    o this extent, the musicians are less convinced by informational power, position power,impersonal and personal reward, and coercive power than by the exercising of expert powerand referent power. Te preceding line of argumentation leads to the following hypotheses:

    Hypothesis1. he use of the conductors expert power has a stronger positive effect onthe artistic quality of orchestras than the exertion of informational power, positionpower, impersonal and personal reward, and coercive power.

    Hypothesis2. he use of the conductors referent power has a stronger positive effect

    on the artistic quality of orchestras than the exertion of informational power, positionpower, impersonal and personal reward, and coercive power.

    MethodologyTe following section describes the methodology of the study.

    Respondents

    o test the relative frequency of use of the various power bases by orchestra conductors, the

    researcher developed a questionnaire about leadership through power and the artistic qualityof orchestras. In line with most dominant approaches regarding the measurement perspectivein leadership research (Hiller et al. 2011), the researchers measured power-based leadershipused by a conductor by asking for the musicians perspective (follower perspective). A firstversion of the questionnaire was discussed with two conductors and two academic experts

    who study power for the questionnaires face validity, namely, the clarity of the wording. Teorchestra managements were respectively asked for the participation of their musicians in thestudy. All questionnaires were handed out to the musicians in face-to-face interactions. Aftercompleting the questionnaires, the musicians returned them in a closed envelope so thatfull confidentiality was ensured. Given this procedure, the response rate was relatively high(more than 70 percent). Overall, 436 musicians from German theater and concert orches-

    tras were surveyed. Te investigated sample of musicians is largely equivalent to the actualcomposition of an orchestra: the majority of the musicians (59 percent) belong to the string

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    7/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    FOUR YPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESRA QUALIY 437

    section; 23 percent are woodwind; 14 percent are brass; and 4 percent belong to the percus-sion section. Approximately half of those surveyed were tutti (54 percent), approximatelya quarter were section leaders (22 percent), and the rest were soloists (23 percent); miss-ing values account for the remaining 1 percent. Te musicians average age was forty years

    (SD = 10.30), and their average professional experience was seventeen years (SD = 10.65).

    Te musicians were asked to specify the degree to which a conductor uses the various powerbases that induce them to correspondingly change their initial interpretations of a score.Moreover, the musicians were asked to assess the artistic quality of their orchestra, and at thesame time to think about their conductor.

    Measurements

    Artistic quality of the orchestra. In contrast to performance quality in the music theater(Boerner and Jobs 2013; Boerner et al. 2008), artistic quality in orchestras as a leadership

    outcome has rarely been investigated in previous leadership research (Hiller et al. 2011).2Building on previous studies (Boerner 2004; Boerner and Krause 2002; Boerner et al. 2004),the present study gathered facets of the reactions to the quality of the orchestra, such as theresonance of the audience, the reactions by the press/critics, guest soloists assessments, theconductors assessments, and musicians assessments (operationalized by their personal qual-ity expectations, individual musical skills, musical skills of the whole orchestra, and the over-all judgment). Te reliability (Cronbachs alpha) for the entire nine items that measured theorchestras performance was .90. able 1 provides an overview of the items to measure artisticquality and their intercorrelations. he items were consolidated into a cumulative valuecalled artistic quality for further statistical analysis.

    Te researcher additionally attempted to estimate the validity of this quality measurement.For this purpose, the researcher reverted to an established classification of orchestras intotariff classes. Te following tariff classes are distinguished: A/F1 = outstanding-tariff class;

    Table 1. Items to Measure Artistic Quality of the Orchestra and Their Intercorrelations

    Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

    1 Musicians overall quality judgment

    2 Musicians quality assessment compared

    to their expectations

    .84***

    3 Musicians quality assessment compared

    to their musical skills

    .78*** .86***

    4 Musicians quality assessment compared

    to the musical skills of the whole orchestra

    .79*** .77*** .76***

    5 Others overall quality judgment .63*** .56*** .55*** .53***

    6 Resonance of the audience .53*** .50*** .49*** .50*** .72***

    7 Resonance of press/critics .18*** .17** .20*** .16*** .37*** .44***

    8 Quality assessment of the conductor .24*** .23*** .29*** .20*** .36*** .28*** .25***

    9 Quality assessment of guest soloists .65*** .64*** .63*** .63*** .66*** .57*** .23*** .36***

    Notes. Pearsons correlation coefficients, two-tailed significance. N varied between 420 and 435 due to missing valuesin the variables.

    **p < .01, ***p < .001.

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    8/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    438 KRAUSE

    A = very high-tariff class, B = high-tariff class, C = moderate-tariff class, D = lowest-tariffclass. In this study, orchestras of the tariff classes A/F1, A, and B took part. An analysis ofvariance shows that the three tariff classes significantly differ from each other with regard tothe artistic quality of the orchestra (F(3, 400) = 25,60;p< .001). Te Scheff post hoc test

    of multiple mean differences shows significant differences among all three tariff classes withrespect to the expected tendency in artistic quality (see able 2). Orchestras in higher-tariffclasses received higher ratings of artistic quality than those in lower-tariff classes.

    Power bases used by the conductor. o date, no established measurement of the power bases inthe orchestra field exists. Terefore, the researcher developed new scales for all power bases.Tis operationalization of the power bases relied heavily on previous power research in othersettings, which has shown valid measurements for each power base (for example, Frost andStahelski 1998; Raven et al. 1998; Yukl and Falbe 1991). Te operationalization is aligned

    with French and Ravens (1959) frame of reference and its enhancement by Raven (1992).Te conductors use of power is evaluated from the perspective of the orchestra musicians

    being led by him or her. Each of the investigated power bases was operationalized throughseveral context-specific items. In doing so, the number of items per examined power base var-ied. As a response, I used a seven-point rating scale.3

    Given that previous measurements of personal power are based on various classificationsof power bases (Krause 2008), they are distinguished from one another, inter alia, in thenumber and type of power bases measured. In the context of orchestras, there are reasonsto assume that the number of power bases deviates from Raven et als. (1998) classification.Terefore, the researcher initially verified empirically the number of power bases in orches-tras to test the number of power bases used in orchestras and calculated confirmatory factoranalyses (see able 3).

    Table 2. Results of Post Hoc Tests by Scheff to Test of Multiple Mean Differences of Tariff

    Class in Terms of Artistic Quality of the Orchestra

    TariffClass

    Means of Scale Sumsof Artistic Quality of

    the OrchestraCases perTariff Class

    Tariff Class A MeanStandard-Difference

    Error

    Tariff Class B MeanStandard-Difference

    Error

    A/F1 5.62 24 .85*** .22 1.38*** .22

    A 4.80 224 .54*** .11

    B 4.27 155

    Note. N = 403 due to missing values in the variable tariff class.

    ***p < .001.

    Table 3. Model Fit of the Structure of Power Bases in Orchestras

    Coefficients Model df 2 p GFI AGFI RMSEA

    G-factor model of power bases 119 977.13 < .0001 .76 .69 .14 .14 .15

    Six-factor model of power bases 117 951.95 < .0001 .79 .73 .13 .12 .14

    Five-factor model of power bases 109 699.40 < .0001 .86 .81 .11 .10 .12

    Two-factor model of power bases 42 202.89 < .0001 .95 .83 .09 .07 .10

    Four-factor model of power bases 80 177.60 < .05 .95 .91 .05 .04 .06

    Notes. AGFI: Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; 2

    : Chi-Square Value; GFI: Goodness of Fit Index; df: degrees offreedom; RMSEA: Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation; p: probability. In all tested models, correlated factors

    were assumed. Below the point estimation of the RMSEA, the confidence interval is provided.

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    9/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    FOUR YPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESRA QUALIY 439

    In the first stage, the researcher tested the six-factor model of power bases according to Raven(1992) and the general factor model of power bases, where the full variance is traced back toa single factor. In the second stage, the researcher tested a five-factor model of the conduc-tors power bases because it can be assumed that impersonal and personal reward and coercive

    power are related categories and therefore can be combined. Te five-factor model of powerbases in the orchestra was accordingly represented by the following power bases: impersonaland personal reward/coercion, legitimate power through position, referent power, expertpower, and informational power. Corresponding to the empirical factor structure (sourcefactors) by Raven et al. (1998), in the third stage the researcher tested a two-factor model,

    which is displayed through the hard power bases and the soft power bases. In the fourth stageof the testing procedure, a four-factor model of power bases was tested because a substantialrelationship between impersonal and personal reward and coercion and a tight link betweenexpert power and referent power can be assumed.

    Consequently, the four-factor model is represented by the power bases of impersonal and

    personal reward/coercive power, legitimate power through position, referent power/expertpower, and informational power (see able 4).4Given that a conductor rarely uses a singlepower base but rather various power bases in combination with each other, correlated fac-tors were accepted for the confirmatory model tests. As able 3 shows, the six-factor modeland the G factor model, as well as the five-factor model and the two-factor model of powerbases in the orchestra, are unsatisfactory with regard to all fit indicators. For this reason, theresearcher discarded these models. With regard to all indicators of model adaptation, thefour-factor model of power bases in orchestras shows an acceptable fit.

    he means, standard deviation, and intercorrelation of the conductors power bases areshown in able 5. Significant positive relations between expert/referent power and imper-sonal and personal reward/coercion appear. Moreover, expert/referent power correlates posi-tively with informational power.

    It becomes obvious that legitimate power through position is the most intensely used kindof power compared to all other power bases under study. Tis finding contradicts previousresults about the use of power in other organizations that have shown that expert power(Frost and Stahelski 1988) or referent power (Yukl, Kim, and Falbe 1996) was predominantlyused to influence other individuals attitudes and/or behaviors. Te second most importantreason for the changes in the musicians manner of interpretation is informational powerfollowed by expert/referent power. In fourth place is the classic power source of reward and

    coercion. Reward power and coercive power have the lowest mean, which can be explainedby the fact that the conductor has, on the one hand, fewer possibilities to reward or punishorchestra musicians compared to leaders in for-profit organizations. On the other hand, thelow mean of reward and coercive power in the orchestra setting can be explained in terms ofthe self-esteem of the musicians: to keep and maintain self-esteem it is common that the atti-tude or behavioral change was forced through legitimate power or expert power, for example,rather than in expectation of a reward or to avoid some sort of punishment. An analysis ofvariance with single contrasts and legitimate power through position as reference categoryshows a significant effect of the used legitimate power through position compared to the usedinformational power (F(1, 410) = 99.34, p< .001), compared to the used expert/referentpower (F(1, 410) = 272.92,p < .001), and compared to the used impersonal and personalreward and coercive power (F(1, 410) = 1042.85,p< .001) of the conductor. Te discussionsection refers to this point.

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    10/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    440 KRAUSE

    o analyze the effects that the various power bases used by the conductor vis--vis the musi-cians have on the artistic quality of the orchestra, the researcher applied linear structuralequation modeling. Te four-factor model shows a very good match, with exclusively directeffects of the forms of power on the artistic quality of the orchestra (df= 128, 2=155.63,GFI= .97,AGFI= .92,RMSEA= .02). Te results, therefore, confirm the recursive four-factor model with direct effects on artistic quality. he path diagram with the parameterestimation for the four-factor model of the conductors power bases as determinants of theartistic quality of the orchestra is illustrated in Figure 1 (standardized solution).

    Te figure clarifies that the various power bases of the conductor increase the artistic qualityof the orchestra in different degrees: expert/referent power has the strongest positive effect

    Table 4. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Four Power Bases in Orchestras

    Factor

    Instruction: If the conductor asks me to change myway of interpretation of a composition and I do italthough I hesitated initially, I follow his or her wish

    because . . . Factor Loadings Item Mean SD F1 F2 F3 F4

    1. Expert/

    referent power

    . . . he or she convinces me through his or her artistic skills. (EI1) 3.67 2.02 .99

    . . . he or she persuades me through his or her personality. (EI2) 3.41 2.05 .97

    . . . he or she demonstrates solid knowledge of the score. (EI3) 4.13 2.02 .89

    . . . he or she appears authentic to me. (EI4) 3.47 2.02 .88

    . . . he or she convinces me through his or her manual skills. (EI5) 3.47 1.93 .84

    . . . according to my experience, his or her interpretation was excellent

    in the past. (EI6)3.11 1.81 .82

    . . . I identify with him or her and therefore adapt my interpretation interms of his or her role model. (EI7) 2.57 1.76 .54

    . . . he or she presumably knows how to play this piece in the best

    manner. (EI8)2.84 1.62 .46

    2. Impersonal

    and personal

    reward and

    coercive

    power

    . . . I know that he or she will recognize me and praise me for that. (RC1) 1.91 1.41 .99

    . . . a positive performance appraisal would increase my career opportu-

    nities and/or my reputation. (RC2)2.07 1.64 .55

    . . . a long-term disagreement would hinder my future career. (RC3) 2.69 1.99 .28

    . . . he or she is able to influence future instrumentations, which might

    have a negative impact. (RC4)1.90 1.57 .01

    3. Legitimatepower through

    position

    . . . I am supposed to act in line with his or her requests due to my roleas an orchestra musician. (L1)

    5.70 1.76 .42

    . . . we are both part of a whole production and should have the same

    opinion. (L2)3.56 2.17 .35

    . . . as a matter of principle, only accommodating of all musicians and a

    synchronized play appears to be suasive. (L3)5.41 1.87 .32

    4. Informa-

    tional power

    . . . he or she offers background information about the composition

    (e.g., historical performance practices). (I1)3.55 2.07 .91

    . . . he or she explains in detail the reasons for the expected change in

    the way of interpretation. (I2) 4.10 1.20 .78

    Note. A 7-point response scale was used.

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    11/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    FOUR YPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESRA QUALIY 441

    on the artistic quality of the orchestra. In contrast, informational has a medium positive

    effect on the artistic quality. Impersonal and personal reward/coercive power and legitimatepower have, to approximately the same extent, a weak positive effect on the artistic qualityof the orchestra. Te differing amounts of path coeffi cients in the model can be interpretedas a confirmation of hypotheses 1 and 2 that the use of expert power and the use of referentpower are the most significant predictors of the artistic quality of the orchestra compared toall other power bases applied. Te power bases analyzed here account for a total of 72 per-cent of the variance of artistic quality, which can be evaluated as a meaningful amount ofexplained variance.

    o control the data error per construct, the researcher estimated the portion of explained var-iance according to Holling (1993, 293) (squaring the path coeffi cients after relativizing them

    in terms of their different reliabilities). o calculate the effect sizes of the single predictors, theresearcher compared the amount of explained variance with and without this predictor in thecriterion. Te following reduced explained variance in the criterion artistic quality throughelimination of the predictor was the result: without expert/referent power, the amount ofreduced explained variance is 64 percent; through the elimination of informational power,the amount of reduced explained variance is 7 percent; through the elimination of legitimatepower, the amount of reduced explained variance is 1 percent; and through the eliminationof impersonal and personal reward and coercive power, the amount of reduced explainedvariance is 0 percent. Tis comparison shows that expert/referent power has the strongesteffect size. In light of these results it can be concluded that this study successfully identified

    relevant predictors of the artistic quality of the orchestra.

    DiscussionTe present study analyzed the conductors applied power bases as predictors of the artisticquality of orchestras. he investigation contributed to the literature in three ways. First,it has shown that four power bases can be distinguished in the orchestra setting. Second,positive effects of power bases on the artistic quality of the orchestra have been empiricallydocumented. Tird, the results have shown that the conductors expert and referent basesof power are more conducive to orchestra quality than legitimate power through position,informational power, impersonal and personal reward, and coercive power. In the following,

    consequences of the study for leadership and power research, research methods, and practice,as well as study limitations are discussed.

    Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations of a Conductors Power Bases

    Power Bases of a Conductor Mean SD 1 2 3 4

    1. Expert and referent power 3.31 1.50

    2. Impersonal and personal reward and coercive power 2.14 1.28 .13** 3. Legitimate power through position 4.89 1.37 .07 .13**

    4. Informational power 3.83 1.76 .53*** .03 .04

    5. Orchestra quality 0.59 0.33 .50*** .13** .10* .32***

    Notes: Pearsons correlation coefficients, two-tailed significance. 7-point Likert scales were used to measure the power

    bases. Scale to measure orchestra quality ranged from 0 to 1. N varied between 416 and 432 due to missing values in

    the variables.

    *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    12/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    442 KRAUSE

    Notes: Standardized solution. Circles represent latent variables; rectangles represent manifest variables; for the manifest

    exogenous and endogenous variables, per factor correlations among the residuals were postulated. Bold coefficients

    means significant. Not bold means not significant.

    *p < .05; ***p < .001

    Figure 1. Results of the Structural Equation Modeling: Four-Factor Model of Power Bases asDeterminants of Orchestras Artistic Quality

    PQ1

    PQ4

    PQ2

    PQ3

    AQ1

    AQ2

    AQ3

    AQ4

    AQ5

    Expert andReferentPower

    Informational

    Power

    LegitimatePower

    Reward andCoercive

    Power

    EI5

    EI6

    EI7

    EI8

    L1

    L2

    L3

    I1

    I2

    RC1

    RC2

    RC3

    RC4

    .99

    .18*

    .88***

    .40***

    .17***

    .00

    .51

    .54

    .34

    .12

    .65

    .72

    .69

    .58

    .56.55

    -.02-.36

    .98

    .92

    .90

    .70

    .72

    .29

    .35

    .75

    EI4

    EI3 EI2 EI1

    .51.53.49.50

    .38

    ArtisticQuality

    Implications for Leadership and Power Research

    Tis study combined leadership and power research. In contrast to traditional leadershipresearch (see Yukl 2012), the conductors leadership behavior was described in terms of theuse of power. Previous power research has shown that power bases are used to a differentextent in diverse organizational settings. In hospitals, for example, informational power, posi-tion power, expert power, and legitimate power through the norm of social responsibility arethe most important power bases (Raven et al. 1998). Conversely, in schools, teachers influ-ence their students primarily through reward and coercive power (Koslowsky and Schwar-zwald 1993). In companies, expert power, referent power, and legitimate power are usedmost frequently (Frost and Stahelski 1988; Yukl and Falbe 1991; Yukl et al. 1996). For theorchestra domain this study has shown that legitimate power through position is most fre-quently used followed by informational power and expert/referent power. Te classical powerbases, reward power and coercive power, are rarely used in the orchestra context. So far, atheoretical explanation for the different use of the power bases depending on the research

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    13/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    FOUR YPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESRA QUALIY 443

    context is absent. Against this background, it could be meaningfulin analogy to the con-tingency approach of leadershipto distinguish the manner of power use according to thespecific situation. As shown, in orchestras the combination of expert and referent power isimportant to enhance orchestra quality. Te rationale for this specific application of power

    lies in the specific constellation in orchestras: the need for a directive leadership style, on theone hand, to ensure coordination and the need for maintenance of the intrinsic motivationof the musicians, on the other hand.

    Implications for Methods in Power Research

    he results support the research strategy used. he application of the context-specificapproach of the power bases is accompanied by a high explanatory value for the respec-tively considered, context relevant performance. Trough the structural equation modelingof power bases in an orchestra context, four power bases could be confirmed. Tis is evi-dence that the typology of the power bases of French and Raven (1959) and Raven et al.

    (1998) cannot be generalized to all contexts. Although, theoretically, six (Raven 1965) orrather eleven power bases (Raven et al. 1998) are distinguishable, in the orchestra settingfour power bases are empirically supported: expert/referent power, impersonal and personalreward/coercion, legitimate power, and informational power. In comparison to other organi-zational contexts, expert power and referent power, as well as reward power and coercivepower, are more closely linked together in the orchestra setting. Te close liaison betweenexpert power and referent power can be explained by noting that orchestra musicians are pri-marily prepared for a solo career during their training. Terefore, they see each other as pro-fessionals and, hence, identify with a similarly professional conductor whom they credit witha high degree of expert knowledge. Te perception of expert knowledge leads to a higher

    desirability of the conductor and, therefore, fosters parallel referent power. Tis argumentthat expert power leads to referent power is also meta-analytically documented (Carson, Car-son, and Roe 1993). Furthermore, reward power and coercive power are closely connectedin orchestras. Tese power bases are generally diffi cult to distinguish from each other, so it ischallenging to determine in a special case whether a reward or coercion is presented (Ravenet al. 1998, 315). Te withholding of a reward can imply a coercion technique and, con-versely, the detention of coercion can demonstrate a reward technique.

    Hence, it would be methodically necessary to use a more than the hitherto context-specificapproach of power that is aligned with the respective organizational type (for example, hospi-tals, schools, universities, prisons, churches). Te use of a context-specific approach (Krause

    and Kearney 2006) would be beneficial because some inconsistencies in previous powerresearch (Podsakoff and Schriesheim 1985) could be reduced. Certainly, it would eliminate,from an operationally pragmatic viewpoint, informed statements about leadership outcomecriteria depending on the kind of organization. In sum, this investigation encourages otherscholars to analyze other leadership outcome criteria in the orchestra context such as musi-cians motivation, flow experiences, burnout, mental and physical health, substance abuse, orcommitment to the conductor or orchestra. Tis research would be beneficial to expand ourknowledge on the effects of orchestra leadership.

    Implication for Practice

    Te results of the study illustrate practical consequences for leadership in orchestras. Fromthe viewpoint of the musicians, the conductor is using legitimate power through position

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    14/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    444 KRAUSE

    most frequently to enforce his or her way of the interpretation. Yet, to promote the artisticquality of the orchestra, it is not legitimate power through position that is most crucial, butexpert/referent power (see Figure 1). However, the musicians perceived that expert/referentpower is used less frequently compared to legitimate power through position. Terefore, a

    discrepancy between the ideal and the reality becomes obvious: from the viewpoint of themusicians, many conductors rely on their leadership position instead of convincing themusicians through expertise and referent power. Considering that many musicians perceivethe artistic quality of their orchestra as in need of improvement (Boerner et al. 2001), conse-quences for action are immediately indicated. Based on the perspective of the musicians that

    was chosen in this study, the education of conductors should focus on professional compe-tence and alsoas in other leadership positionson the social competence or interpersonalskills (Hunt et al. 2004) of the conductors to enhance the likelihood to become a positiverole model and consequently promote orchestra quality. Overall, a balancing act seems to benecessary between the enhancment of professional competenceto increase the potential forexpert powerand social competenceto enhance the potential for referent power. Accord-ing to the results of this study, these two competencies, which manifest themselves in expertand referent power, are the central components for the highest degrees of artistic quality.

    Limitations

    Although the analysis had advantages, it also involved problems. One issue is the measurementperspective. Tis study measured the conductors leadership behaviors from the perspective ofthe musicians, and consequently the musicians perceptions come into play. Tis measurementperspective is not unique for the present study but is the dominant measurement perspective inleadership research during the past twenty-five years (Hiller et al. 2011). Another problem of

    this cross-sectional study is the possibility of a common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003).Given that both the power bases and the artistic quality were estimated by the same source, theamount of the calculated path coeffi cients could, in principle, also be based upon an overesti-mation of the predictorcriterion relationships. In light of this issue, it would be beneficial infurther investigations to use multisource data and to classify the artistic quality of the orchestrathrough various groups of individuals. A longitudinal design is recommended for this purpose.

    Another issue is that good orchestras attract good conductors. Consequently, the reputation ofan orchestra approximately thirty years ago is associated with the artistic quality of the orchestratoday. Terefore, it needs to be concluded that variations of orchestras quality are also contin-gent upon other characteristics and not only upon the leadership behaviors of the conductor.Moreover, all orchestra musicians came from German orchestras. Given that, future researchis encouraged to reanalyze the impact of power-based leadership on orchestra quality in othercountries before generalizations can be made. A prerequisite for those generalizations would becross-cultural research on leadership in the orchestra domain.

    Notes 1. Moreover, the study by Bathurst, Williams, and Rodda (2007) analyzed events and processes during a changeprocess in an orchestra and did not apply a specific leadership approach. 2. here are several challenges in measuring artistic quality of orchestras: first, no standard criterion for theoperationalization of the construct exists; second, the application of a standardized performance criterion wouldmitigate individual musicians standards. 3. he rating method has advantages compared to the ranking method in power research: the ipsativity of thedata connected to the ranking method would lead to linear dependence in the set of the power bases to be assessed,

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    15/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    FOUR YPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESRA QUALIY 445

    whereby the statistical analysis of the underlying linear structures would become problematic (Schriesheim, Hinkin,and Podsakoff 1991). For this reason, my measurement is based on the tradition of the deductively developed frame-

    works for measuring personal power in organizations. 4. With the successive confirmatory model tests, the researcher used a covariance matrix as a starting matrix, thevariances were fixed as latent variables, and all loadings were freely estimated, respectively.

    References

    Allmendinger, J., and R. Hackman. 1994. Bringing Music to the People: Continuity and Discontinuity in

    East German Orchestras. Cross-National Study of Symphony Orchestras. Report No. 3. Cambridge, MA:

    Harvard University: Harvard University Press.

    . 1995. he More the Better? A Four-Nation Study of the Inclusion of Women in Symphony Orches-

    tras. Social Forces74 (2): 42360.

    . 1996. Organizations in Changing Environments: he Case of East German Symphony Orchestras.

    Administrative Science Quarterly41:33769.

    Amabile, . M., K. G. Hill, B. A. Hennessey, and E. M. ighe. 1994. he Work Preference Inventory:

    Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    66:95067.

    Atik, Y. 1994. he Conductor and the Orchestra. Leadership and Organization Development Journal15 (1):

    2228.

    Bathurst, R., and D. Ladkin. 2012. Performing Leadership: Observations from the World of Music.

    Administrative Science2:99119.

    Bathurst, R., L. Williams, and A. Rodda. 2007. Letting Go of the Reins: Paradoxes and Puzzles in Leading

    an Artistic Enterprise. International Journal of Arts Management9 (2): 2938.

    Boerner, S. 2004. Artistic Quality in an Opera Company: oward the Development of a Concept. Nonprofit

    Management and Leadership14 (4): 42536.Boerner, S., and D. Gebert. 2012. Fostering Artistic Ensemble Performance. Exploring the Role of ransfor-

    mational Leadership. Nonprofit Management and Leadership22 (3): 34765.

    Boerner, S., and J. Jobs. 2013. Enjoying heater: he Role of Visitors Response to the Performance. Psychol-

    ogy of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts7 (4): 391408.

    Boerner, S., and D. E. Krause. 2002. Fhrung im Orchester: Kunst ohne knstlerische Freiheit? Eine

    empirische Untersuchung [Leadership in an orchestra: Art without artistic freedom?].Zeitschrift fr

    Personalforschung16 (1): 90106.

    Boerner, S., D. E. Krause, and D. Gebert. 2001. In der Kunst untergehenin der Kunst aufgehen?

    Empirische Ergebnisse zur Funktionalitt einer direktiv-charismatischen Fhrung im Orchester [Submerg-

    ing or drowning in art: Empirical results on the function of directive-charismatic leadership in orchestras].Zeitschrift Fhrung und Organisation70 (5): 28592.

    . 2004. Leadership and Cooperation in Orchestras: An Empirical Study. Human Resource Develop-

    ment International 7(4): 46579.

    Boerner, S., H. Neuhoff, S. Renz, and V. Moser. 2008. Evaluation in Music heater: Empirical Results on

    Content and Structure of the Audiences Quality Judgement. Empirical Studies of the Arts26 (1): 1535.

    Boerner, S., and C. von Streit. 2007. Promoting Orchestral Performance: he Interplay between Musicians

    Mood and a Conductors Leadership Style. Psychology of Music13 (1): 13546.

    Canetti, E. 1998.Masse und Macht [Mass and power]. Frankfurt: Fischer.

    Carson, P., K. Carson, and C. Roe. 1993. Social Power Bases: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Interrelation-

    ships and Outcomes.Journal of Applied Social Psychology23 (14): 115069.

    Cartwright, D. 1965. Influence, Leadership, Control. In Handbook of Organizations, edited by J. March,147. Chicago: Rand McNally.

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    16/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    446 KRAUSE

    Csikszentmihalyi, M., and J. Lefevre. 1989. Optimal Experience in Work and Leisure.Journal of Personality

    56:81522.

    Dahl, P. A. 1957. he Concept of Power.Behavioral Science56:20115.

    De Dreu, C. K. W., and L. R. Weingart. 2003. ask vs. Relationship Conflict and eam Effectiveness.

    Journal of Applied Psychology88 (4): 74149.Elangovan, A. R., and J. L. Xie. 2000. Effects of Perceived Power of Supervisor on Subordinate Work

    Attitudes. Leadership and Organization Development Journal21 (6): 31928.

    French, J. R. P., and B. Raven. 1959. he Basis of Social Power. In Studies in Social Power, edited by D.

    Cartwright, 150167. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Frost, D. E., and A. J. Stahelski. 1988. he Systematic Measurement of French and Ravens Bases of Social

    Power in Work Groups.Journal of Applied Social Psychology18:37589.

    Hatch, M., and K. E. Weick. 1998. Critical Resistance to the Jazz Metaphor. Organization Science

    9:600604.

    Hiller, N. J., L. A. De Church, . Murase, and D. Doty. 2011. Searching for Outcomes of Leadership: A

    25-Year Review.Journal of Management37:113777.

    Holling, H. 1993.Zur Anwendung von Strukturgleichungsmodellen in der psychologischen Forschung. In Arbeits-

    und Organisationspsychologie im Spannungsfeld zwischen Grundlagenforschung und Anwendung[Work and

    organizational psychology in the area of conflict between fundamental research and applied sciences], edited

    by W. Bungard and . Herrmann. Bern: Huber.

    Hunt, J. G., G. E. Stelluto, and R. Hooijberg. 2004. oward New-Wave Organization Creativity: Beyond

    Romance and Analogy in the Relationship between Orchestra-Conductor Leadership and Musician Creativ-

    ity. Leadership Quarterly15:14562.

    Kamoche, K., and M. P. e Cunha. 2001. Minimal Structures: From Jazz Improvisation to Product Innova-

    tion. Organization Studies22 (5): 73364.

    Khodyakov, D. M. 2007. he Complexity of rustControl Relationships in Creative Organizations: Insights

    from a Qualitative Analysis of a Conductorless Orchestra. Social Forces86 (1): 122.Koivunen, N. 2003. Leadership in Symphony Orchestras.ampere, Finland: ampere University Press.

    Koivunen, N., and G. Wennes. 2011. Show Us the Sound! Aesthetic Leadership of Symphony Orchestra

    Conductors. Leadership7 (1): 5171.

    Kping, A.-S. 2007. he Creative Compost: Playing and Conducting Musical Events. InAesthetic Leader-

    ship. Managing Fields of Flow in Art and Business, edited by P. G. de Monthoux, C. Gustafsson, and S.-E.

    Sjstrand, 1532. Chippenham and Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Koslowsky, M., and J. Schwarzwald. 1993. he Use of Power actics to Gain Compliance: esting Aspects of

    Ravens heory in Conflictual Situations. Social Behavior and Personality21:13543.

    Krause, D. E. 2004. Influenced-Based Leadership as a Determinant of the Inclination to Innovate and of

    Innovation-Related Behaviors: An Empirical Investigation. Leadership Quarterly 15 (2): 79102.

    . 2008, April. Effects of Power-Based Leadership on Innovative Behaviors at Work. Paper presented

    at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.

    . 2011. Enhancing Process Innovations: he Role of Cognitions, and Power-Based Leadership.

    International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 3:21230.

    Krause, D. E., and S. Boerner. 2001. Experts Lead Experts. Das Orchestra49 (12): 811.

    Krause, D. E., and K. Kearney. 2006. he Use of Power in Different Contexts: Arguments for a Context

    Specific Perspective. In Power and Influence in Organizations. New Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives,

    edited by C. A. Schriesheim, and L. L. Neider, 5986. Hartford, C: Information Age Publishing.

    Ladkin, D. 2008. Leading Beautifully: How Mastery, Congruence and Form Create the Aesthetic of

    Embodied Leadership Practice. Leadership Quarterly19 (1): 3141.

    Langendrfer, F., V. Hodapp, G. Kreutz, and S. Bongard. 2006. Personality and Performance Anxiety amongProfessional Orchestra Musicians.Journal of Individual Differences27 (3): 16271.

  • 7/23/2019 Krause-2015-Nonprofit Management and Leadership

    17/17

    Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

    FOUR YPES OF LEADERSHIP AND ORCHESRA QUALIY 447

    DIANA E. KRAUSEis professor and head of the Department of Human Resource Management,Leadership and Organizational Behavior at the University Klagenfurt in Austria.

    Leonard, N. H., L. L. Beauvais, and R. W. Scholl. 1999. Work Motivation: he Incorporation of Self-

    Concept-Based Processes. Human Relations52:96987.

    Marotto, M., J. Roos, and B. Victor. 2007. Collective Virtuosity in Orchestras: A Study of Peak Performance

    in an Orchestra.Journal of Management Studies44 (3): 388413.

    Mintzberg, H. 1983. Power in and around Organizations.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in Organizations.Boston: Pittman.

    Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common Method Biases in Behavio-

    ral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.Journal of Applied Psychology

    88:879903.

    Podsakoff, P. M., and C. A. Schriesheim. 1985. Field Studies of French and Ravens Bases of Power: Critique,

    Reanalysis, and Suggestions for Future Research. Psychological Bulletin97(3): 387411.

    Raven, B., J. Schwarzwald, and M. Koslowsky. 1998. Conceptualizing and Measuring a Power/Interaction

    Model of Interpersonal Influence.Journal of Applied Social Psychology28 (4): 30732.

    Raven, B. H. 1965. Social Influence and Power. In Current Studies in Social Psychology, edited by I. D.

    Steiner and M. Fishbein, 37182. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    . 1992. A Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence: French and Raven hirty Years Later.

    Journal of Social Behavior and Personality7 (2): 21744.

    Rowold, J., and A. Rohmann. 2009. ransformational and ransactional Leadership Styles, Followers Positive

    and Negative Emotions, and Performance in German Nonprofit Orchestras. Nonprofit Management and

    Leadership20 (1): 4159.

    Saavedra, R., P. C. Earley, and L. Van Dyne. 1993. Complex Inter-Dependence in ask-Performing Groups.

    Journal of Applied Behavioral Psychology78:6172.

    Schriesheim, C. A., . R. Hinkin, and P. M. Podsakoff. 1991. Can Ipsative and Single-Item Measures Produce

    Erroneous Results in Field Studies of French and Ravens (1959) Bases of Power? An Empirical Investiga-

    tion.Journal of Applied Psychology76:10614.

    Weick, K. E., D. P. Gilfillan, and . A. Keith. 1973. he Effect of Composer Credibility on OrchestraPerformance. Sociometry36 (4): 43562.

    Yukl, G. 2012. Leadership in Organizations.Prentice Hall, NJ: Pearson.

    Yukl, G., and C. M. Falbe 1991. Importance of Different Power Sources in Downward and Lateral Relations.

    Journal of Applied Psychology 76:41623.

    Yukl, G., H. Kim, and C. M. Falbe. 1996. Antecedents of Influence Outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology

    81:30917.