The Effects of Social Power Bases Within Varying ...

City University of New York (CUNY) City University of New York (CUNY)

CUNY Academic Works CUNY Academic Works

Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects CUNY Graduate Center

9-2017

The Effects of Social Power Bases Within Varying Organizational The Effects of Social Power Bases Within Varying Organizational

Cultures Cultures

Ayanna Cummings The Graduate Center, City University of New York

How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!

More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2313

Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu

This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected]

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc

http://ols.cuny.edu/academicworks/?ref=https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2313

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2313

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/?

mailto:[email protected]

THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL POWER BASES WITHIN VARYING

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES

by

AYANNA R. CUMMINGS

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Psychology in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,

The City University of New York

2017

© 2017

AYANNA R. CUMMINGS

All Rights Reserved

ii

The Effects of Social Power Bases within Varying Organizational Cultures

by

Ayanna R. Cummings

This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Psychology to satisfy the

dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

___________________________ ______________________________

Date Harold Goldstein, PhD

Chair of Examining Committee

___________________________ ______________________________

Date Richard Bodnar, PhD

Executive Officer

Supervisory Committee:

Harold Goldstein, PhD, Advisor CUNY Faculty

Charles Scherbaum, PhD CUNY Faculty

Karen Lyness, PhD CUNY Faculty

Loren Naidoo, PhD CUNY Faculty

Charles Moses, PhD, Dean, College of Business, Austin Peay State University

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

iii

Abstract

The Effects of Social Power Bases within Varying Organizational Cultures

by

Ayanna R. Cummings

Advisor: Harold Goldstein, PhD

This study focuses on social power in the context of organizational culture and how this

relationship impacts outcomes of follower compliance and trust. Power is the ability to direct or

influence the behavior of others or a course of events (Handgraaf, et al., 2008). There are six

different types of social power, including informational, referent, legitimate, coercive, rewarding,

and expert (Fontaine & Beerman, 1977). Each type of social power may lead to varying

psychological outcomes, such as compliance, satisfaction, and agreement. To date, the empirical

literature has not fully addressed the issue of whether one type of power is more effective than

the others in different organizational cultural contexts. This study examined the effectiveness of

four types of social power in varying organizational cultural contexts for eliciting follower

compliance and trust (Tharp, 2009). The methodology employed videos which manipulated the

types of power and culture to examine their impact on followers. Followers were asked to what

extent they would comply with the leader and how much they trusted the leader. None of the

findings for MANOVA, ANOVA and T-tests were statistically significant. Coercive power in

hierarchical culture demonstrated higher compliance and trust outcome means, but reward power

within an adhocracy culture demonstrated lower compliance and trust outcome means.

Results are discussed in terms of potential confounders, possible attributional influences,

and the implications for organizational outcomes of compliance and trust.

iv

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank my dear mother, whose tireless encouragement, support, and motivation

inspire me each day to continue striving for my own excellence in all that I do. She is my

biggest cheerleader, without whom I do not know whether I would have accomplished this

monumental goal I set for myself. Secondly, I wish to thank Harold Goldstein and my

Dissertation Committee, Charles Scherbaum, Karen Lyness, Charles Moses, and Loren Naidoo,

whose support and feedback made this paper ready for submission. Without their

encouragement and approval I would not have come this far. Thank you to my dear Aunt Ruby,

who will celebrate her 95th birthday in January, 2018, only a few months! Congratulations to

both of us are an order, Aunt Ruby! My grandmother is smiling down on me now, and I hope

you know how much I love and appreciate all that you are and the spirit that lives in you. You

are the strength of our family, and we love you dearly. Thank you for your constant prayers,

without ceasing. Finally, I thank my Heavenly Father, whose grace and mercy saw me through

the best and worst days. When I look back at it all, I remember all the goodness and joy I feel

right this very moment, and that is sufficient.

v

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………….viii

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………..........ix

CHAPTER 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………..1

CHAPTER 2: Power…………………………………………………………………………4

Models of Social Power……………………………………………………………...6

Types of Power………………………………………………………………………7

Soft vs. Harsh Power Bases…………………………………………………............18

Outcomes/Implications of Power……………………………………………………19

CHAPTER 3: Organizational Culture……………………………………………………….27

Definition…………………………………………………………………………….27

Four Types of Organizational Culture……………………………………………….28

Leader Power in the Context of Organizational Culture……………………………..34

CHAPTER 4: Current Study and Hypotheses……………………………………………….42

CHAPTER 5: Method………………………………………………………………………..46

Participants…………………………………………………………………………...46

Research Design……………………………………………………………………...46

Procedure…………………………………………………………………………….47

Independent Variables……………………………………………………………….49

Control Variables…………………………………………………………………….51

Dependent Measures………………………………………………………………....51

CHAPTER 6: Results………………………………………………………………………...53

vi

Pilot Study Summary…………………………………………………………………53

Main Study……………………………………………………………………………60

Hypothesis Test Results/MANOVA..………………………………………...66

T-Test Results………...……………………………………………………….69

Univariate ANOVA Results……………..…………………………………….71

CHAPTER 7: Discussion……………………………………………………………………...79

Findings and Review of Hypotheses…………………………………………………..79

Limitations……………………………………………………………………………..86

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...93

Implications and Directions for Future Research………………………………93

Appendix A. Figure 1. Compliance and Trust Predictions……………………………………..100

Appendix B. Scenario and Condition/Manipulations.………………………………..………..101

Appendix C. Pilot Study Questions………………………………….……………………..…106

Appendix D. Fictitious Company Description.………….……………………………………109

Appendix E. Bio of James Smith, Fictitious Leader Depicted in Video……………………..112

Appendix F. Compliance with Supervisor’s Wishes Scale (Rahim, 1988)………………......115

Appendix G. Trust Questionnaire (McCallister, 1995)……..…………………………………116

References……………………………………………………………………………………..118

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Pilot Study Response Summary……………………………….……………………….57

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables…………………………………….64

Table 3: Normality Tests for the Dependent Variables per Group………………………..……..66

Table 4: Results of MANOVA Model Effects Including Demographic Factors………….70 & 79

Table 5: T-Test Comparison of Compliance Across Adhocracy and Hierarchy Cultures………71

Table 6: T-Test Comparison of Trust Across Adhocracy and Hierarchy Cultures……………...71

Table 7: Univariate ANOVA Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Total Compliance……….72

Table 8: Estimated Marginal Means by Group for Total Compliance…………………………..72

Table 9: Multiple Comparisons by Group for Total Compliance………………………………..73

Table 10: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for Total Trust……………………………………76

Table 11: Estimated Marginal Means by Group for Total Trust………………………………...77

Table 12: Multiple Comparisons for Total Trust………………………………………………...78

Table 13: Ethnic Breakdown for Total Enrollment at the Main Study Data Collection Site……91

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Compliance and Trust Predictions…………………………………………………..97

Figure 2: Box Plots for the Total Compliance Score per Group………………………………65

Figure 3: Box Plots for the Total Trust Score per Group……………………………………...65

Figure 4: MANOVA Marginal Means for the Total Compliance Scale per Group…………...68

Figure 5: MANOVA Marginal Means for the Total Trust Scale per Group………………….69

Figure 6: Univariate ANOVA Marginal Means of Total Compliance………………………..73

Figure 7: Marginal Means by Group for Total Trust………………………………………….77

ix

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL POWER AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 1

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

This study focuses on social power in the context of organizational culture and how this

relationship impacts outcomes of follower compliance and trust. Power is the ability to direct or

influence the behavior of others or a course of events (Handgraaf, et al., 2008). There are six

different types of social power, including informational, referent, legitimate, coercive, rewarding,

and expert (Fontaine & Beerman, 1977). Each type of social power may lead to varying

psychological outcomes, such as compliance, satisfaction, and agreement. Attributions for why

compliance and commitment behaviors arise include “attempts to avoid punishment, gain

rewards or approval, please a positive reference person, rely on convincing information, or

merely to carry out orders given by a legitimate authority or an expert,” (Alanazi & Rodrigues,

2003; Rodrigues, 1995).

To date, the empirical literature has not addressed the issue of whether one type of power is

more effective than the others in different organizational cultural contexts. The present research

will examine the effectiveness of four types of social power in varying organizational cultural

contexts for eliciting follower compliance and trust. The organizational contexts that will be

investigated include hierarchy and adhocracy cultural environments (Tharp, 2009). The

methodology will employ videos which manipulate the types of power and culture to examine

their impact on followers. Followers will be asked to what extent they want to follow the leader

(i.e., compliance) and how much they trust the leader.

In this study, I will examine the interaction effects between power and culture on follower

outcomes. A leader has the option to exercise power in a number of ways, and this functions

within the context of organizational culture to impact whether followers will be committed to the

organization and comply with the leader’s requests. Thus, the organizational cultural context is

predicted to largely determine how power will operate. In summary, the focus of this study will


be on exploring the extent that a leader’s social power interacts with organizational cultural

context to differentially determine follower outcomes. A figure depicting this prediction for four

of the power bases is presented in Figure 1 located in Appendix A. The purpose of the present

investigation is to assess the effects of four different types of social power within two types of

organizational culture (i.e., hierarchy and adhocracy) on the outcomes of follower compliance

and trust.

Power is the ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or a course of events

(Handgraaf, et al., 2008; Raven & French, 1958). Social power, the focus of the present

investigation, has six types as defined by French and Raven (1959). These include expert,

informational, referent, coercive, reward and legitimate. Expert power arises because of one

person’s expertise about a given subject (Spekman, 1979). Informational power brings about a

cognitive change in and acceptance by the target and only pertains to specific pieces of

information (Raven, 2004). Referent power arises because of a high level of respect or

admiration for the leader; the leader is looked up to as a role-model (Raven & French, 1958).

Coercive power involves the removal of incentives through punishment, such as demotion,

termination, or undesirable work assignments (Raven, 2004). Reward power arises when one

has the ability to grant desirable rewards or to remove negative outcomes (Raven & French,

1959). Legitimate power is that which is obtained on the basis of a position and which evokes in

followers a sense of obligation, duty, or responsibility to accept the leader’s influence (Raven &

French, 1959; Raven, 2004).

Organizational culture can be thought of as comprising the values that leaders try to

indoctrinate (Schein, 2010). Cameron and Quinn (1999) developed a typology of organizational

culture based on the Competing Values Framework. In this typology, there are four types of


organizational culture, including hierarchy, clan, market and adhocracy (Tharp, 2009). These

types represent two levels of a dichotomous continuum, from stability versus flexibility to

internal versus external orientation (Schein, 2010). This typology will serve as the basis of the

organizational cultural manipulation in the present investigation. Two of the cultural types,

hierarchy and adhocracy, will be used in the current study. Hierarchy culture represents stability

and internal orientation, whereas adhocracy culture represents flexibility and external orientation.

These two cultural types were selected because they represent two extremes of the organizational

cultural continuum and this is important in order to give the study “the statistical power to detect

real effects if they exist,” (Pelham & Blanton, 2012, p. 246).

The methodology for the present investigation will entail participants watching videos in

which the power bases and organizational cultural contexts are manipulated in order to elicit

reactions in the participants who will then respond to questions pertaining to their compliance

with a fictitious leaders’ request (as depicted in the video) and trust of the leader. Two-hundred

forty-six (246) university students will participate in the research for course credit.

Results are expected to reveal that expert and referent power within an adhocracy culture

yield the highest compliance and trust, whereas coercive power within an adhocracy culture will

yield the lowest levels of these variable, and these results are expected due to the fit of power

with organizational culture. Shetty (1978) noted that expert power is more likely to yield

compliance, and Mosaic Projects (2014) notes that the people-oriented soft power bases of expert

and referent power are better aligned with adhocratic cultural environments which embrace

people-oriented operating principles and ideals.

Results will be discussed in terms of leaders’ usage of power in varying organizational

cultures and the impact of this interaction on follower outcomes of compliance and trust.


Next, I will review the literature on leader power, organizational culture, and the

interaction effects between organizational culture and leaders’ use of social power.

CHAPTER 2: Power

Power is the ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or a course of events

(Handgraaf, et al., 2008; Raven & French, 1958). Cobb (1984) stresses that three aspects must

be present in discussions of the definition of power – that is, an agent, or powerholder, a target,

or follower/powerless individual, and a situational context or arena of action, such as the formal

or informal organization. Max Weber proposed that power is “the probability that one actor

within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance,

regardless of the basis on which this probability rests,” (Zafirovski, 2001, p. 100). This definition

implies that a certain degree of hegemony will impact whether the powerholder is able to gain

compliance from the powerless. This hegemonic view is prevalent in bureaucratic organizations

in which leaders possess the positional authority to direct the behavior of followers, the

resistance to which might be met with severe punitive consequences (Zafirovski, 2001). Thus,

the organizational cultural context largely determines how power will operate. This aspect of

contextual influence on power will be the focus of the present study. For example, one of the

hypotheses of the present investigation is that in a hierarchical environment an expert form of

power would tend not to be as effective as a coercive form of power due to the context within

which the power is operating, since followers may be more likely to respond to coercion in a

hierarchy where there is heightened structure and rigidity.

It can be argued that leadership implies power (Bal et al., 2008; Gabel, 2012; Giessner &

Schubert, 2007; Kessler, 2010). Power may vary depending upon the status of the leader within

the organization, gender, or other factors. Also, possessing power might make one less


responsive to persuasive messages and less attentive, with this effect mediated by confidence

(Min & Kim, 2013). Powerlessness might make one susceptible to a sense of social

responsibility and charity from others, such that persons with power may be more altruistic

toward those who lack it (Dijk & Vermunt, 2000; Handgraaf, et al., 2008).

Hollander and Offerman (1990) point out that “leadership clearly depends on responsive

followers,” (p.179). Without the followers’ perceptions of the leaders’ power, it is impossible to

know whether the exercise of such was effective or ineffective. Hollander and Offermann

(1990) also point out the crucial role that organizational culture and climate play in the leaders’

ability to exercise influence over followers using a particular leadership style. This aspect of

power, how it interacts with organizational culture to determine the leaders’ outcomes, will be

the main focus of the present investigation.

To examine social power bases in the context of organizational culture, we must

understand that power is similar to other related concepts which may be operating in the same

environment simultaneously, including authority, influence and control. The tendency to

confuse power with authority compromises the integrity of such institutions as public educational

institutions (Mitchell & Spady, 1983). Power is said to be rooted in the instrumentality and the

organization, whereas authority is said to be rooted in the individual actor. The origin of

organizational authority is evident in the division of labor, in which each person’s behavior is

observed by another person per the organizational pyramid (Katz & Kahn, 1978). This implies

that authority reflects position power (Shetty, 1978).

Interdependence theories define power as “asymmetric control over another’s desired

outcomes,” (Goodwin, 2003, p. 141). Manz and Gioia (1983) defined interpersonal power as

control over organizational resources,” (p. 459). Fiske’s (1993) Power as Control theory


identifies the perceiver as an impression-forming body who is prone to biases in judgment due to

lack of attention to specific cues of information (Goodwin, 2003). However, control can be

construed as a separate variable from power.

Models of Social Power

French and Raven (1959), who are credited with developing the bases of social power

that will serve as independent variables in the present investigation, defined power as social

influence. Power can be social or personal (Lammers, Stoker, & Stapel, 2009). Power in which

one exercises control or influence over other people is referred to as social power. Personal

power, on the other hand, is power to do and get what you want, without any influence from

others. For the purposes of the present investigation, my focus is on social power. There are six

types of social power which are distinct from the concept of leadership in some instances

because the power holder may or may not be a leader (Gardner,1988; Salem et al., 2000).

French and Raven’s typology is not the only formulation for the concept of social power

(Henderson, 1981), though it is the focus of the present investigation. Other models of social

power include the reciprocal influence model of social power by Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen and

Kraus (2008). In the reciprocal influence model of social power, power is derived from

advancing the interests of the entire group. The model is “based on evolutionist analyses of

human hierarchies, and notions that the capacity for subordinates to form alliances imposes

important demands upon those in power, and that power heuristically reduces the likelihood of

conflicts within groups,” (Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen & Kraus, 2008, p. 185).

Game theory (Harsanyi, 1962) outlines another model of social power in which social

power is defined as the ability of an actor to change to the incentive structures of co-actors to

yield results. In the game, one actor might remove options from other actors thereby limiting


their outcomes. The relative costs of actions can also be changed, as can the possibility that a

given action will result in a particular outcome (Harsanyi, 1962).

Another model of social power is that of Stewart Clegg (1989). Clegg proposed the

circuits of power theory, in which there are three distinct interacting circuits: episodic,

dispositional, and facilitative. The circuits operate at the macro and micro levels, two macro and

one micro. The episodic circuit is the micro level, whereas the dispositional and facilitative

circuits operate at the macro level. All three circuits, albeit independent, interact at “obligatory

passage points” that serve as channels to empower or disempower (Clegg, 1989).

Now I will delve into the types of power offered by French and Raven (1959).

Types of Power

The social power base model offered by French and Raven (1958) is the most

comprehensive and universally studied power base model to date. I will introduce the types of

power offered by French and Raven (1958), and provide relevant research related to each power

type. These are expert, informational, referent, coercive, reward, and legitimate.

Expert power arises because of one person’s expertise about a given subject. Expert power

results from the target’s faith that the powerholder has some superior knowledge that is useful

under a given set of circumstances (Raven, 2004), such as an attorney who is sought out to

provide legal advice (French & Raven, 1960). This is especially the case in conditions of

environmental uncertainty (Spekman, 1979). Environmental uncertainty refers to the degree to

which the environment is prone to change or is unpredictable (Menguc, Whitwell, & Uray,

2000). Interestingly, subordinates rated female managers higher than male managers on expert

power (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1990), but male psychologists were more likely to use expert

power than any of the four power bases combined (Getty & Erchul, 2009). Expert power is


positively related to the Big Five personality trait of agreeableness (Karkoulian, Messarra, &

Sidani, 2009).

Expert power can be maintained or enhanced by continually increasing one’s skill set in any

given area (Carson, Carson, Knight and Roe, 1995), especially in the situation in which the goal

is to empower employees. Expert power base is positively correlated with both organizational

commitment and attitudinal compliance (Rahim and Afza, 1993). Meng, He and Luo (2014)

corroborated this finding regarding expert power and attitudinal compliance, and further indicate

that expert power is positively correlated with behavioral compliance and satisfaction with

supervision.

Busch and Wilson (1976) conducted an analysis involving life insurance salespeople and

customers’ behavioral intentions to learn more about life insurance. It was found that

salespeople high in expert power were more likely to elicit the desired behavioral changes than

those low in expert power, referred to as expertise. Furthermore, in comparison to referent

power, expert power was a more significant factor in developing trust between salespeople and

customers. In another study measuring the purchasing behavior of consumers of life insurance,

Taylor and Woodside (1982) found that frequent attempts by the insurance agent to establish

expert power was associated with increased buying behavior.

Kudisch et al. (1995) compared the construct of expert power to that of charisma and found it

to be a unique and different construct as it relates to predicting subordinate attitudes. Mukherjee,

Pinto, and Malhotra (2009) found that the exercise of expert power was more related to voice

complaining behavior, which is defined as direct complaining to the organization. West (2009)

demonstrated that leader’s display of expert power enhanced the relationship between service,

humility and shared vision and affective organizational commitment in a dissertation study of


servant leadership involving members of the United States Navy.

Carson, Carson and Pence (2002) found that expert power was positively related to perceived

organizational support, which was measured by Eisenberger’s (1986) instrument. The

Eisenberger (1986) questionnaire includes items which ask the employee questions such as

whether the organization “strongly considers (the employee’s) goals and values” and whether the

organization “cares about (the employee’s) contribution to its well-being,” (p. 12).

Petress (n.d.) indicates that informational power arises because the powerholder possesses

some specific knowledge that followers consider essential or desirable. The fact that the target

may not understand the reason for this superior knowledge is what distinguishes expert power

from informational power, wherein a target may understand the reason behind a piece of

information thus putting him or her at an advantage. When an expert delves beyond their area of

expertise in attempting to exert expert power over another, the effect backfires and their expert

power is diminished (French & Raven, 1960).

Pettigrew (1972) discusses information control during an innovative decision process by

a gatekeeper as a source of power. Although not included as one of the original five bases of

power in French and Raven’s (1959) typology, informational power is necessary to include as a

basis of power for discussion and review in the present investigation.

In Baldwin, Kiviniemi, and Snyder (2009), participants who had received the informational

advantage reported a greater sense of interpersonal power than those who had not received the

information; this effect was only significant for informational power. A second study created an

expectation after the participants received some information that did not have any explicit type of

advantage, and the participants receiving this expectation reported more diffuse feelings of

power, including informational power, influence, and social or interaction skills (i.e., but not


coercive power) (Baldwin, Kiviniemi, & Snyder, 2009).

The distinction between expert and informational power can be relevant in interpersonal

interactions (Baldwin, Kiviniemi, & Snyder, 2009). In such a context, informational power

might exist in the form of an expectation held about another person, serving as a source of

information which others might not have. On the other hand, expert power, along with formal

power and sanction power, was found to be more utilized in crisis situations than in non-crisis

situations (Mulder, deJong, Koppelaar, & Verhage, 1986). Bal et al., (2008) indicate that

informational power is among the most desirable and leveraged sources of power in an

organization. Informational power brings about a cognitive change in and acceptance by the

target (Raven, 2004). It occurs independent of the supervisor because the target may not

remember why or how this change came about, but nonetheless continues the changed behavior.

The mere mention of the term “coercive” evokes pejorative feelings of hegemony, the use of

force to elicit compliance (Lee, 1988; Posner & Vermeule, 2006) and the abuse of power (Sieber,

2007). Coercive power in political systems or bureaucratically-governed institutions is prevalent

in the literature (Adler & Borys, 1996; Truman, 1954). Because coercive power creates

perceptions of greed, philanthropic gestures can be used to counter these effects (Willer,

Youngreen, Troyer, & Lovaglia, 2012). Coercive power is simply the removal of incentives

through punishment, such as demotion, termination, or undesirable work assignments (Raven,

2004). Studies suggest that when such punishment is used appropriately, it can result in positive

relationships with subordinate performance and satisfaction, but when used inappropriately it can

result in negative outcomes (Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1984). Use of coercive power results in

a decreased attraction for the powerholder, which lowers referent power (i.e., a power base in

which the follower has a high level of respect or admiration for the leader) (French & Raven,


1960). Coercive power can also be the threat of rejection (Wilson, 2014). Thus, it is to the

target’s advantage to hide the fact that they did not comply with the powerholder’s request in

order to avoid punishment. Targets of coercive power tend to resent feeling forced, resent the

threat of punishment, and dislike the powerholder (Raven, 2004).

In contrast to coercive power, legitimate power is that which is obtained on the basis of a

position and which evokes in followers a sense of obligation, duty or responsibility to accept the

leader’s influence (Raven & French, 1959, Raven, 2004). Unlike coercive power, legitimate

power can arise as the result of a democratic election (Raven & French, 1958) or by appointment

of authority figures such as in a bureaucracy (French & Raven, 1960). Zafirovski (2001) notes

that power itself attempts to gain legitimation and approval regardless of how it is obtained. It is

this form of power, legitimate power, to which Weber referred in terms of the legitimacy of

authority (Zafirovski, 2001). Besides legitimate authority, legitimate power can arise from many

different sources. Legitimate power can also stem from reciprocity, wherein a target feels an

obligation to reciprocate on the basis of what someone has done for him or her (French & Raven,

1960). Legitimate power can arise from equity, wherein a target seeks to compensate for an

imbalance of equity that previously existed (French & Raven, 1960). It can also arise from

responsibility, meaning a responsibility to help others who cannot help themselves or who are

powerless (French & Raven, 1960). Legitimate power can arise from cultural values that the

powerholder possesses certain characteristics which grant him or her legitimate power, such as

age, intelligence, caste and physical attributes (French & Raven, 1960). Finally, legitimate

power can arise from acceptance of the social structure (Raven & French, 1958). Because

legitimate power that arises as the result of the appointment of authority contains boundaries or

duties within which the powerholder must act, a powerholder who goes beyond those specific


boundaries in attempting to exercise power over a target person are likely to have their legitimate

power lessened and be viewed as less attractive, in turn lowering their referent power (French &

Raven, 1960). According to Raven and French (1958), legitimate power “involves some value

or standard, accepted by the individual, by virtue of which the agent can assert his power,”

(p.83).

Hartl, Hofmann, Gangl, Hartner-Tiefenthaler, and Kirchler (2015) conducted an empirical

investigation to determine whether tax authority’s legitimate or coercive power would yield

compliance behaviors in taxpayers. Results revealed that both coercive and legitimate powers

brought about compliance behaviors in taxpayers. This research extends the findings of

Hofmann, Gangl, Kirchler, and Stark (2014) who posited that legitimate power increases the

“reason-based” trust taxpayers have in tax authorities which eventually leads to their voluntary

cooperation with tax paying, essentially a form of compliance behavior.

Meng, He, and Luo (2014) found that legitimate power (among others) was positively related

to both attitudinal and behavioral compliance in a study involving research scientists at a UK-

based institution using the Compliance with Supervisor’s Wishes scale developed by Rahim

(1988). Social power bases were measured using the Rahim Leader Power Inventory.

Schwarzmuller, Brosi, Sporrle, and Welpe (2014) conducted three experiments in which they

discovered that perceived legitimate power, among other power bases, was enhanced by a

leader’s display of anger. This in turn did not enhance the leader’s effectiveness but did serve to

decrease loyalty while enhancing deviance towards that leader (Schwarzmuller et al., 2014).

Atwater and Yammarino (1996) found that legitimate power was the most often endorsed

power base as perceived by 280 employees reporting to 118 supervisors in 45 organizations. In

an experimental design, Raven and French (1958) assessed 56 female undergraduates on


acceptance of legitimate power sources in group exercises. In the group support exercise

manipulation, the subjects had to elect a supervisor for an exercise in which they cut out

cardboard solids. In the no-support group exercise, the subjects were appointed a supervisor

whom they had not elected and were told to perform the same cardboard-cutting exercise. It was

expected that subjects in the group support condition would perceive the supervisor as having a

legitimate right to her position (i.e., due to the fact that the supervisor had been elected), and that

subjects in the no-group support condition would not perceive the supervisor as having a

legitimate right to her position. The hypothesis was supported, in that the majority of subjects in

the group support condition thought that the elected supervisor should have held this position,

whereas only half of the subjects in the no-group support condition thought that the appointed

supervisor should have held this position. The more the group members felt the individual

would have support from the group, the more they felt she should have been made supervisor.

These findings indicate that group support increases the legitimacy with which an individual

holds a position. It was also expected that the more group members perceived the supervisor as

having a legitimate right to hold an office, the greater the amount of influence she would be able

to have over group members. This hypothesis was tested using the subjects’ degree of

compliance with an instruction by the supervisor to “slow down” while cutting the cardboard.

Results revealed that subjects in the group support condition did comply by slowing down more

than subjects in the no-group support condition when instructed to do so. Finally, it was

hypothesized that the more subjects perceived the supervisor to have a legitimate right to her

position, the greater attraction they would feel towards the supervisor. This hypothesis was also

supported.

Reward power arises when one has the ability to grant desirable rewards or to remove


negative outcomes (Raven & French, 1959), for example a raise in pay, a promotion, or special

work privileges (Raven, 2004). Reward power can also arise from the personal approval of

someone whom the target respects. The exercise of reward power affects the strength of other

forms of power when multiple forms are present in a given situation (Gaski, 1986); for instance,

the implementation of rewards increases the attraction a target has for a powerholder, thereby

increasing the powerholder’s referent power (French & Raven, 1960). It is to the advantage of

the target to inform the powerholder that they have complied in order to obtain rewards (Raven,

2004). There is a tendency for targets of reward power to have greater liking for the

powerholder and to have greater acceptance of the change that has occurred. When leaders have

control or decision-making ability that can affect outcomes such as pay and promotion for

subordinates, they are prone to biased judgments (Goodwin, 2003; see also Kipnis, 1976,

“metamorphic effects of power”).

Monetary rewards may be more than frivolous incentives. Research suggests that extrinsic

rewards can serve to enhance memory (Murayama & Kitagami, 2014). Also, larger hypothetical

monetary rewards have greater motivational power (Ostaszewski, Babel, & Swebodzinski,

2013). Furthermore, rewards do not necessarily have to be monetary to be effective. Even

handshakes can be rewarding and result in employee motivation (Spitzer, 1996). Carson,

Carson, Knight and Roe (1995) also attest that nonmonetary rewards increase quality

performance so long as they are “desirable, attainable, and appropriate to the action,” (p. 3).

Reward power, contrasted with the use of coercive power, has also been studied in the context of

alliance politics, which is beyond the scope of the present investigation (Izumikawa, 2013).

The display of reward power and the subsequent display of self-reward behaviors was

modeled in an experiment conducted by Mischel and Liebert (1967). The experimenters found


that children who had observed a model’s stringent display of reward behaviors acted out more

stringent displays of reward when wielding self-rewards in comparison to control subjects.

In comparison to organizational behavior undergraduate participants who were punished,

participants who were rewarded perceived that power had been more wisely used, developed

more positive attitudes toward the powerholder, and had stronger and more cooperative

relationships with the powerholder in an employment context as manipulated by the

experimenters (Tjosvold, 1995). Ozcan, Karatas. Caglar, and Polat (2014) found that

educational administrators’ use of reward power (among others) led to organizational cultures

which were bureaucratic and power-based, rather than success-based. The authors suggested that

instead, the use of expert power and charisma should be employed (Ozcan, Karatas. Caglar, &

Polat, 2014). Stillman, Baumeister, and DeWall (2007) found that low-power participants

laughed more at an interviewer’s jokes when the interviewer controlled the amount of cash they

would receive as a monetary reward than in the absence of such incentives.

Both reward and punishment (coercive) power led to exit complaining behaviors in a study

involving students in an educational setting (Mukherjee, Pinto, & Malhotra, 2009). An exit

complaining behavior is one in which there is no actual complaining; instead, the consumer

shifts to other product or service providers and discontinues patronage (Mukherjee, Pinto, &

Malhotra, 2009).

On the other hand, referent power arises because of a high level of respect or admiration for

the leader. In a referent power situation the leader is looked up to as a role-model (Raven &

French, 1958) and the follower seeks to gain the approval of the leader (Green, 1999). Referent

power is inherently based on the follower’s trust for the leader (Carson, Carson, Knight, and

Roe, 1995). Because a follower is highly attracted to a powerholder in a referent power


situation, he or she also highly identifies with the powerholder (French & Raven, 1960). In the

implementation of referent power, the outcomes of organizational commitment, compliance and

resistance are possible. Organizational commitment is likely when it is believed that the request

made is important to the leader since the follower seeks to gain his or her approval. Compliance

is possible, but not as likely as organizational commitment, since the degree of importance to the

leader is the factor the subordinate considers. Finally, a leader’s request can be met with

resistance if there is a potential that fulfilling the request can bring the leader harm (Green,

1999).

Rahim and Buntzman (1989) found that referent power was positively correlated with

satisfaction with supervision. In the Rahim and Buntzman (1989) study, data were collected

from 301 American business students who had at least one year of full-time work experience.

Meng, He and Luo (2014) corroborated this finding regarding referent power and satisfaction

with supervision. Rahim and Afza (1993) found that referent power was positively correlated

with four variables: satisfaction with work, organizational commitment, attitudinal compliance

and behavioral compliance. In that study, data were collected from 308 American accountants.

The display of referent power (among others) by agents leads consumers to display

purchasing behavior (Taylor & Woodside, 1982). In the Taylor and Woodside (1982)

investigation, data were collected from three sales agents and 57 consumers. However, Busch

and Wilson (1976) demonstrated that eliciting buying attitudes and purchasing behaviors was

more likely when expert power was used rather than referent power. But high referent

powerholders were perceived as more trustworthy than low referent powerholders (Busch &

Wilson, 1976). Referent power was also important in developing identification with the

salesperson and a shared identity, as expected (Busch & Wilson, 1976). Although similar to


charisma, referent power (among others) has been shown to be a unique construct (Kudisch, et

al., 1995).

The type of power used may depend upon the situation in which it is being employed.

Powerholders, also referred to as agents, may go through a cost-benefit analysis to determine

which type of power will be most effective in a given situation. This is important because the

preferred use of one type of power over another will determine its impact on the outcomes being

studied, including compliance and trust. Some situational factors to consider include

characteristics of the manager, characteristics of the subordinate, and characteristics of the

organization (Shetty, 1978). Informational power is highly desirable but may not be cost-

effective in terms of the time investment required to implement it. Coercive power may result in

rapid compliance, but it also requires a high amount of surveillance to ensure that the target is

indeed complying, results in the target disliking the powerholder and holding ill feelings toward

him or her, and may require the powerholder to violate his or her own moral or value system or

social norms in order to implement it effectively (Raven, 2004). Referent power, which focuses

on the similarity of the target to the powerholder, may undermine the target’s respect for the

powerholder’s superior knowledge or expertise and legitimacy of position. Thus, the type of

power imposed upon the target could have differential effects, some of which may be negative.

Follower perceptions of leader power are the focus of the present investigation. Using a

methodology that employed having followers view videotapes of a powerholder displaying

varying power behaviors, such as will be used in the present investigation, Palich and Hom

(1992) found that leader power affected perceptions of leader behavior, and that displayed leader

behaviors contributed to the development of perceptions of power. Participants include 202

undergraduate senior business students at a large southwestern university. Leader behaviors


were manipulated by having participants view a videotape showing a leader displaying

prototypical or non-prototypical behaviors; leader power was manipulated by having participants

view a videotape showing leaders display high legitimate and expert power sources or not

displaying these power bases. These two factors were crossed so that participants were

randomly assigned to one of four conditions: prototypical/high legitimate and expert power; non-

prototypical/high legitimate and expert power; non-prototypical/no legitimate and expert power;

prototypical/no legitimate and expert power. Perceived prototypical leader behaviors were

measured using the Leader Behavior Descriptive Index. Power attributions were measured using

the Holzbach Attributed Power Index. General leadership impressions were assessed using the

Crownshaw and Lord General Leadership Impression items. Leader behavior manipulations led

to perceptions of prototypical leader behaviors, which led to leader impressions; leader power

manipulations led to ascriptions of leader power. However, power attributions did not impact

global leader impressions.

Soft vs. Harsh Power Bases

It is important to note that the power bases can be divided into two factor-analyzed

categories, soft and harsh (Koslowsky & Stashevsky, 2005, Mosaic Projects, 2014). The

difference is in the measurement of the outcomes. The soft power bases use social or relational

outcomes, whereas the harsh power bases use physical and economic outcomes. The three

power bases which comprise the soft category are informational, expert and referent. The three

power bases which comprise the harsh category are reward, legitimate and coercive. The

literature makes this division into the two categories in order to provide some indication into

how the power bases perform in empirical analyses. The soft power bases usually have similar

impact, just as the harsh power bases do (Koslowsky & Stashevsky, 2005, Mosaic Projects,


2014).

According to Mosaic Projects (2014),

“There are two groups of power in the French and Raven model. One group is about the

person: expert power and referent power. Most people carry these with them from job to

job but a new team may take time to appreciate these abilities – these are most closely

associated with leadership and motivation. The other group is about the context:

legitimate power, reward power and coercive power which are more job specific (but are

available immediately on appointment to a new role). These are more closely associated

with management and hierarchy.”

This means that the harsh power bases should be better aligned with hierarchy and the

soft power bases should be better aligned with adhocracy. Hierarchical culture aligns with harsh

power types because hierarchy, as a term and as a practice, is a hegemonic, controlling force

which seeks to dominate. Adhocratic culture, on the other hand, is aligned with soft power types

because adhocratic culture is people-centered, flexible and open to external influence. For

instance, an adhocracy culture is most likely to embrace the concept of intrapreneurship.

The soft power bases that will be studied are expert and referent power as described

above in the Mosaic Project (2014). The harsh power bases that will be explored are coercive

and reward power, because the legitimate (i.e., position) power implies hierarchical reign of one

member of the organization over another, and this confounds with the hierarchical cultural

manipulation for organizational culture.

Outcomes/Implications of Power

There are many implications of power evidenced by findings in the empirical literature

related to a leader possessing power. The implications of power are important because they

determine what outcomes will manifest from the demonstration of power by leaders or others.

That is, power has great impact on many people, including the person who possesses it. The

implications tell us what happens when a person displays the use of power in a social setting.


Power may reduce loss aversion by increasing the implicit value of gains and reducing the

estimated negative value of losses (Inesi, 2010), increase implicit racial prejudice (Brauer &

Bourhis, 2006; Guinote, Willis, & Martellota, 2010), make power holders more likely to ignore

ethical social influences (Pitesa & Thau, 2013), make power holders more likely to exert voice

(Islam & Zyphur, 2005) and facilitate goal-directed behavior (Slabu & Guinote, 2010). The

psychological effects of power on formal leaders may be negative, such that they produce verbal

dominance, diminish communication and deteriorate team performance (Tost, Gino & Larrick,

2013). According to Salzwedel (2002), the wielding of power can result in three outcomes for

followers. These include organizational commitment when the power holder is well liked,

compliance when the followers simply acquiesce because that is the status quo, and resistance

when there is contention between the leader and followers. Compliance and trust will be

examined as outcomes in the present investigation.

Compliance

There are a number of outcomes of social power, as the foregoing literature review would

attest. The two that will be studied in the present investigation are compliance and trust. As

mentioned already, the outcomes of compliance and trust have not yet been examined as they

pertain to the combination of power and culture per se. They have only been examined as

outcomes of power only. Green (1999) suggests that the two power bases which are most likely

to elicit compliance are reward and legitimate power. This is somewhat consistent with Shetty

(1978), who argued that legitimate and expert power were most likely related to compliance,

whereas coercive power was least related to compliance. Marinova (2005) found that innovative

roles were negatively and significantly related to compliance behaviors in a study of four

hundred organizations.


Shaw and Condelli (1986) did not corroborate the finding in Shetty (1978) that legitimate

and expert power were most likely related to compliance. These authors conducted an

experiment with 108 undergraduate introductory psychology students to determine what effect

compliance outcome and the bases of power have on the powerholder-target relationship.

Compliance outcome was a manipulation in a scenario where a target complied with the request

of a powerholder and there was either a positive outcome, a negative outcome, or the outcome

was unknown. Results revealed no significant main effect between compliance outcome and

power base. Results did reveal that positive compliance outcomes impacted the powerholder-

target relationship in that they enhanced the powerholder’s future use of power, decreased the

necessity of surveillance, made the powerholder more attractive to the target, and increased the

target’s private acceptance of the powerholder’s demands. Surveillance is operationalized here

as whether the target would comply if there was no way for the powerholder to know whether or

not the target complied. Positive compliance outcomes’ means were significantly higher than

negative compliance outcomes’ means. Results also revealed that the coercive power base had

the least favorable outcomes, such that the coercive power holder was least able to use power in

the future, needed to maintain the most surveillance, was least attractive to the target, and was

least likely to induce private acceptance, consistent with Shetty (1978). The authors then

determined whether the participants would rate the target as being responsible for the compliance

outcomes. Targets were attributed greater responsibility for the outcomes when referent, expert

and information power (i.e., the soft power bases) were used, than when coercive, reward or

legitimate power (i.e., the harsh power bases) were used to obtain compliance (Shaw & Condelli,

1986).

Police officer subordinates were significantly more likely to comply with their captain


using soft rather than harsh power bases. They were also more likely to comply with both soft

and harsh power bases when the captain used transformational leadership tactics than when they

did not use transformational leadership tactics (Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, & Agassi, 2001).

Compliance can be subdivided into behavioral compliance versus attitudinal compliance.

In another study by Michener and Burt (1975), behavioral compliance was assessed as the degree

to which lower-status organizational members complied with orders by higher-status members.

Five components of authority were examined as independent variables, including coercive

power, collective justification, success-failure, normativity, and the endorsement accorded the

leader. Normativity and endorsement are two forms of legitimacy or legitimate power as defined

by French and Raven (1959). Normativity is position-specific legitimacy which “denotes

influence based on understandings regarding the demands an authority can impose on a low-

status member,” (Michener & Burt, 1975, p. 607), whereas endorsement is person-specific

legitimacy. It refers to the lower-status members’ feelings regarding the high-status person as a

role occupant. Collective justification is the justification made by authorities for their orders, in

which the collective interests of the low-status members are highlighted. When an order from a

high-status member serves a collective interest, it will generally meet with greater compliance

than when it serves a selfish interest. Compliance was a measure of whether the 160 participants

complied with an experimentally manipulated tax assessment imposed by a confederate who

posed as the high-status leader in a group exercise. Compliance was found to increase

significantly when coercive power was high, when justification was collective, and when

demands were normative. Endorsement did not affect compliance by lower-status members.

Three-hundred and fifteen graduate students were surveyed to assess their perceptions,

intentions and behaviors arising from their faculty advisors’ use of the five power bases


(Aguinis, Nesler, Quigley, Lee & Tedeschi, 1996). When graduate students perceived a faculty

member as having higher expert, referent and reward powers, they also rated the quality of the

professor-student relationship higher. Expert power was positively related to trustworthiness of

the faculty advisor, whereas coercive power was negatively related to trustworthiness. The

negative relationship of coercive power with trustworthiness is even more pronounced when

accompanied by high legitimate power and low referent power. As expected, referent and expert

power were positively associated with ratings of faculty members’ credibility, whereas coercive

power was negatively related to this variable. Next, the relationship between reward power and

compliance was strong and positive when referent power was high but not when referent power

was low. Similarly, high legitimate power was associated with increased compliance when

coercive power was high but not when coercive power was low.

Fontaine and Beerman (1977) found that expert, coercive and legitimate power were

associated with low expectancies for compliance and satisfaction, whereas informational,

referent and reward power led to high expectancies for compliance and satisfaction. The authors

tested their hypotheses using a simulation experiment involving head and staff hospital nurses

reading a scenario describing a request by a head nurse for compliance by a staff nurse, with the

six different types of social power manipulated in the scenarios. The head and staff nurses role-

played the head and staff nurses, respectively, in each scenario. Their findings were not

consistent with the division of the power bases as either harsh (coercive, legitimate, and reward)

or soft (expert, referent, and informational) (Fontaine & Beerman, 1977).

Trust

McCallister (1995) developed a widely-used model of organizational trust which

subdivides the construct into cognition-based and affect-based components. McCallister’s


(1995) 11-item measure was tested on dyads of managers and their peers with six items devoted

to cognition and five items devoted to affect. Examples of affect-based trust items include “I can

talk freely to this individual about difficulties I am having at work and know that (s)he will want

to listen” and “we would both feel a sense of loss if one of us was transferred and we could no

longer work together,” (McCallister, 1995, p. 37). Examples of cognition-based trust items

include “this person approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication” and “given this

person’s track record, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence and preparation for the job,”

(McCallister, 1995, p. 37). McCallister’s (1995) model fit the data and all factor loadings were

significant. Translation of McCallister’s (1995) findings to those of the present investigation

will be limited due to the fact that McCallister’s (1995) findings pertain to trust of peers and not

of supervisors. However, it is not necessary to make a distinction between organizational trust in

recent literature and trust in the leader or supervisor. Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, and Winograd

(2000) indicate that organizational trust entails placing confidence and holding positive

expectations for the behavior of multiple organizational members, including leaders or

supervisors (Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, & Winograd, 2000).

Costigan et al. (2006) distinguishes between cognition-based and affect-based trust in a

supervisor. Cognition-based trust in a supervisor stems from the employee’s previous

experiences with the supervisor in terms of his or her trustworthiness. On the other hand, affect-

based trust is emotion-driven and evolves through the employee/supervisor’s forming a bond or

relationship. Affect-based trust is not as common as cognition-based trust in which an employee

recognizes whether or not the supervisor has demonstrated his or her trustworthiness in the past

(Costigan et al., 2006).

Zhu and Akhtar (2014) also distinguish between cognition-based and affect-based trust in


the supervisor in their study involving transformational leadership. Using a sample of Chinese

employees in retail (n=84) and manufacturing (n=91) firms, survey data were collected on

cognition-based trust, affect-based trust, transformational leadership and job satisfaction.

Employees’ supervisors (Retail: n= 44; Manufacturing services: n=26) also rated them on task

performance. Results revealed that the model was a good fit overall; transformational leadership

behaviors led to both cognition-based and affect-based trust (Zhu & Akhtar, 2014).

De Lima Rua and Arauja (2016) discuss the impact of transformational leadership,

mediated by organizational commitment, on organizational trust as an outcome variable in an

exploratory analysis. They surveyed 58 maintenance workers of a Portuguese Foundation and

found that transformational leadership, defined as leaders who possess the ability to garner

employee commitment and dedication to the organization, has a positive impact on

organizational trust. Organizational trust is a psychological concept which was defined as the

“confidence that one person has in another in a way that he/she acts through a predictable,

behavioral and fair conduct,” (De Lima Rua & Arauja, 2016, p. 46). Organizational commitment

did not mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational trust.

Another study examined the impact of employee trust in supervisors on affective

commitment, using leadership as a moderator variable (Xiong, Lin, Li & Wang, 2016). Xiong,

Lin, Li and Wang (2016) demonstrated in two empirical analyses (Study 1: n=138; Study 2:

n=154) involving fourteen Chinese companies across nine industries, that authentic leadership

moderates the relationship between trust and commitment.

Asencio and Mujkic (2016) also discuss the relationship between leadership and trust in a

study involving government employees. The authors used transformational and transactional

leadership behaviors as the independent variables, including contingent reward and active


management by exception, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, and inspirational

motivation, among others. Data were collected from 263,475 federal employees using the 2010

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. Trust in leaders was defined in the same way De Lima

Rua and Arauja (2016) defined it, as a psychological state reflecting the assurance that another is

capable of carrying out their expected behaviors with pragmatism and diplomacy. Specifically,

trust in leaders was measured using the question “I have trust and confidence in my supervisor.”

Results revealed that 66.5% of federal employees expressed that they agreed or strongly agreed

with the trust question regarding their leaders. When leaders displayed transformational

leadership behaviors such as intellectual stimulation, idealized influence and inspiration

motivation, employees place more trust in them (Asencio & Mujkic, 2016).

Bulatova (2015) also examined the role of leadership in creating organizational trust in

Latvian (i.e., Eastern Europe, former republic of USSR) companies. The study involved both the

affective and cognitive components of trust and leadership using the Leader-Member Exchange

(LMX) seven-item scale and the McCallister (1995) organizational trust test. The sample

included 215 employees ages 24-63, of four different Latvian service and product corporations.

Findings indicated that ethics-based, relationship-oriented leadership has a positive correlation

with organizational trust, with implications for the use of organizational trust as an outcome

variable in organizational research.

Schoorman, Mayer and Davis (2007) provide a model of organizational trust. Their

model dissends from the view that trust is trait-based and embraces the idea that trust is moreso

an aspect of relationships within organizations. This notion of trust is more consistent with an

affect-based trust definition (Zhu & Akhtar, 2014) which requires building a “socio-emotional”

relationship between leaders and followers (Zhu & Akhtar, 2014). On the one hand, trust is


viewed as the “willingness to take risks” (Schoorman, Mayer & Davis, p. 346). McCallister

(1995) concurs with this notion, indicating that “trust enables people to take risks,” (McCallister,

1995, p. 25). Zhu and Akhtar (2014), however, indicate that trust reduces impressions of

uncertainty and risk and fosters positive work attitudes and behaviors.

Results will be discussed in terms of leaders’ usage of different types of power in varying

organizational contexts and the potential impact of this interaction on follower outcomes of

compliance and trust.

Next, I will discuss the concept of organizational culture by providing a general overview

of definitions. This will be followed by the organizational cultural types to be used in the present

investigation, namely those of Cameron and Quinn’s (1999) typology from the Organizational

Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI).

CHAPTER 3: Organizational Culture

What is organizational culture?

Organizational culture will be analyzed as the context in which social power will operate

in the present investigation. In a general sense, organizational culture can be thought of as the

values that leaders try to indoctrinate (Schein, 2010). Along this line, organizational culture is a

concept that leaders have the symbolic power to define (Hallett, 2003). It is the set of “shared

basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal

integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to

new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems,”

(Schein, 2010, p. 18). Organizational culture serves as a lens through which members’

perspectives are filtered (Smith & Vecchio, 2007). A firm’s history of success may “reaffirm the

soundness of past practices in the minds of the company’s leaders and other members…and


result in the options generated being inherently limited and inadequate to deal with threats that

the company faces or opportunities that it could exploit,” (Smith & Vecchio, 2007, p. 504).

Organizational culture encompasses both individual and group level phenomena (Harris, 1994).

At the individual level cognitive schemas are created in the organization’s members symbolically

representing the culture.

Leaders and powerholders have a profound impact on the culture of the organization.

They can serve to help transmit and buttress the organizational culture (Schein, 2010). Leaders

or powerholders can do this through charisma and by serving as role models and coaches. The

leader sets the tone for the organization in terms of what he or she pays attention to, how he or

she reacts to crises, how he or she allocates resources, rewards and status, how he or she selects,

promotes, and punishes, and so on (Schein, 2010).

Four types of organizational culture

There are a number of models of organizational culture (Jung, et al., 2009). I will focus on

the model of organizational culture developed by Cameron and Quinn in 1999 because this is the

model most widely studied in other empirical investigations (Bellot, 2011).

Cameron and Quinn (1999) developed a typology of organizational culture based on the

Competing Values Framework. In their model, which is measured by their Organizational

Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), there are four types of organizational culture, including

hierarchy, clan, market and adhocracy (Tharp, 2009). In the OCAI, the four types of

organizational culture represent two levels of a dichotomous continuum, from stability versus

flexibility to internal versus external orientation (Schein, 2010). It is this typology that will

serve as the basis of the organizational cultural manipulation in the present investigation.

Two of the four types of culture in the Cameron and Quinn (1999) typology – hierarchy and


adhocracy - will be included in the present study. First I will discuss the four types of

organizational culture in the OCAI model and review literature validating the OCAI model and

then I will give a brief discussion on why the two types of organizational culture chosen for the

present investigation have been selected. The first type of organizational culture to be reviewed

is hierarchy. A hierarchical culture is characterized by bureaucracy and hegemonic status

differentials which signal the authority of one organizational member over another (Weber,

2009). Stability and control make hierarchical cultures those in which effective leaders

demonstrate organizational capability, high monitoring, and coordination. Hierarchies are

associated with status inequalities and often convey pejorative connotations such as

organizational corruption and social dominance (Rosenblatt, 2012). Furthermore, hierarchies

imply power to the extent that more extreme status differentials are indicative of greater power

of an authority figure over a subordinate (Giessner & Schubert, 2007). Purely hierarchical

cultures in which a sole leader makes decisions that affect a number of subordinates may be

outdated and rare (Morris, 1979). How hierarchies can be transcended to create cultures of

shared leadership is often the topic of discussion (Barnes et al., 2013). Generally some executive

body or subordinate participation in the decision-making process is more common nowadays.

An adhocracy culture combines the market culture’s external focus with a concern for

differentiation with flexibility and discretion (Tharp, 2009). This may be a culture most likely to

facilitate participative decision-making (Kanter, 1981; Sen & Metzger, 2010). In an adhocracy

culture, there is a focus on creativity and innovation with a lean toward entrepreneurial

development of new products and services (Tharp, 2009) Adhocratic cultures thrive in the midst

of chaos and are future-oriented and adaptable (Tharp, 2009). Organizational cultures which are

adhocratic are characterized by risk-taking and tend to be the leaders operating in dynamic


markets (Naranjo-Valencia, Jimenez-Jimenez & Sanz-Valle, 2011). In comparison to

hierarchical cultures which “promote imitation cultures” (p. 55), adhocracy cultures advance

organizational products and services in order to differentiate them from competitors (Naranjo-

Valencia, Jimenez-Jimenez & Sanz-Valle, 2011).

The two types of culture that I will not focus on include clan and market cultures. A clan

culture is characterized by flexibility and discretion rather than stability and control. Similar to

hierarchical cultures, however, clan cultures are inwardly focused with an interest in integration.

As the name connotes, clan cultures are marked by a collectivistic orientation towards the pursuit

of team and group rather than individual goals (Tharp, 2009), participation, cohesion, and shared

values (Yazici, 2011). Unlike either a hierarchy or a clan culture, a market culture has an

external orientation with a focus on differentiation rather than integration. It is “directed at

creating and satisfying customers through continuous needs assessment,” (Deshpande & Farley,

2004, p. 61).

The rationale for my selection of hierarchy and adhocracy cultures for the present

investigation is the fact that these culture types represent extremes of a continuum representing

internal vs. external orientation and differentiation vs. integration. An internal orientation is one

in which the organization focuses on its own needs and only responds to demands within the

company, whereas an external orientation is one in which the company focuses on the needs of

the environment in which it is embedded. Differentiation occurs when the various departments

and teams within the organization create their own subculture within the parent company’s

overall culture. Integration occurs when the various departments and teams within the company

coordinate their operations so that there is a strong connection between departments and products

(Hanks, n.d.). The focus on extreme groups is chosen because focusing on extremes can achieve


greater statistical power in hypothesis tests (Preacher, Rucker, MacCallum, & Nicewander,

2005). Preacher, Rucker, MacCallum and Nicewander (2005) cite the Feldt (1961) study which

demonstrated that, in comparison to a traditional correlational approach to data analysis, a t-test

followed by the extreme groups approach provided a more powerful test of the data. Not only

does the use of the extreme groups approach yield greater statistical power. Use of extreme

groups is also often rationalized due to its cost-efficiency, better reliability, and improved effect

size (Preacher, Rucker, MacCallum & Nicewander, 2005).

Now I will discuss the validation of the OCAI model. Heritage, Pollock and Roberts (2014)

provided evidence for the validity of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. Data

from a sample of 328 Australian employees revealed that the four factor structures of both ideal

and current organizational cultures were supported. However, the reciprocally-opposed

relationships between the factors and the outcome variable of job satisfaction were only revealed

for the current organizational cultures, and not for the ideal cultures, thus indicating a need for

further investigation into the factor structures and validation of the OCAI.

Further validation support was provided for the Korean version of the OCAI by Choi, Seo,

Scott and Martin (2010). The authors investigated the cultural equivalence of the Korean and

English versions of the instrument using a sample of 39 bilingual Koreans. Furthermore, scale

reliability and construct validity were assessed using a sample of 133 members of the Korean

Professional Baseball League. Results revealed the successful translation of the Korean version

and that the psychometric properties of the scale were maintained as well as the meaning of the

English version OCAI items.

Jaeger and Adair (2013) used the OCAI to determine the dominant organizational culture in

the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar,


Bahrain and Oman). A study of 99 organizations revealed that the clan and hierarchy culture

types were the most dominant cultures, followed by market and then adhocracy cultures. The

OCAI was determined to be an effective model for assessing organizational culture, but the

construct validity of the results was limited due to the fact that the respondents were not native

English or Arabic speakers.

The OCAI was used to assess the organizational culture of the Eritrean Center for

Organizational Excellence (ERCOE). Beyene (2011) found using a methodology involving

interviews with the OCAI that the ERCOE’s dominant culture was clan culture, followed by the

adhocracy culture. These two organizational culture types were also the top two preferred

organizational cultures by ERCOE members. This was a unique finding due to the fact that a

clan culture has an inward focus whereas an adhocracy culture has an external focus.

The OCAI was used to examine the relationship between organizational culture and job

satisfaction (Zavyalova & Kucherov, 2010). In a study involving thirteen St. Petersburg and

Moscow companies, differential results were revealed for each of the organizational culture

types. Specifically, market culture created the condition for the satisfaction of self-affirmation

needs; hierarchy culture created the condition for the satisfaction of safety and cooperation

needs; clan culture for the satisfaction of respect needs; and adhocracy culture for self-

actualization needs.

Another study used the OCAI to assess the relationship between organizational culture and

medical care provider satisfaction (Scammon et al., 2013). Results of the surveys involving 63

providers indicated that clan culture was negatively correlated with amount of administrative

work required; adhocracy culture was positively associated with time spent working; market

culture was positively correlated with quality of care; and hierarchical culture was negatively


correlated with the relationships with staff and resource dimensions.

Several studies focus on the interaction of organizational culture with different leadership

styles. While the present study will focus on the combination of organizational culture with

different leadership power, the results are still worth noting. Giritli, Oney-Yazici, Topcu-Oraz,

and Acar (2013) assessed the relationship between organizational culture and leadership style

using the OCAI. A sample of 499 management personnel was studied in order to determine how

leadership style is influenced by organizational culture. The findings revealed that managers

with different cultural characteristics do take on different leadership styles. For instance,

managers in a clan culture tended to adopt paternalistic and consultative leadership styles, where

consultative style was also the most preferred leadership style. Hierarchical cultures were less

likely to have a consultative leadership style; adhocracy cultures were more likely to have a

participative leadership style.

Shurbagi and Zahari (2013) investigated the organizational culture in the National Oil

Corporation of Libya. Their study specifically looked at the relationship between

transformational leadership behaviors and organizational culture using the OCAI. A hierarchical

culture was the dominant organizational culture type in the National Oil Corporation of Libya,

and there was a significant positive relationship between transformational leadership and

organizational culture.

Using Cameron and Quinn’s (1999) Competing Values Framework model, significant

differences were observed for the type of culture found in companies in seven different

industries, including construction, banking, information technology, pharmaceuticals, power,

steel and telecom (Gupta, 2011). Adhocracy culture was more likely to be observed in the

pharmaceutical industry, whereas clan, market and hierarchy cultures were most likely to be


observed in the construction industry (Gupta, 2011). Another typology researched in connection

with the Cameron and Quinn model, the Miles and Snow typology, says that organizational

strategies can be categorized into four parts, namely prospector (innovatively seeks new

markets), defender (protects current markets), analyzer (simultaneously maintains market share

and seeks to be somewhat innovative by improving upon products and services offered by

competitors) and reactor (no consistent strategic approach and reactive to events without

anticipating them) (Barney & Griffin, 1992). While it is beyond the scope of this paper to delve

into the details of this typology, it is important to note that it was also found that organizations

using the prospector strategy were more likely to employ an adhocracy culture. Furthermore,

clan and adhocracy cultures were most likely to be found in organizations employing an analyzer

strategy (Gupta, 2011). Finally, organizations that employed a defender strategy were high on

hierarchy culture, whereas organizations that employed a reactor strategy were high on clan

culture (Gupta, 2011). The findings from this study imply that the type of organizational

strategy impacts which culture you will find. Since the organizational strategy employed is a

decision the leader makes, so can we analyze leader style (another action of the leader) for its

impact on the types of culture.

Leader Power in the Context of Organizational Culture

In sum, the effectiveness of the leader style (and strategy employed) depends on the

culture and thus I will look at whether leader power works in the same way (i.e., is dependent

upon the culture). Giosa (2009) summarizes the tenet of the present investigation best when he

states, “As a result of the multiple variables affecting the leader’s achievement, there are a great

number of scholarly interpretations which differ according to the aspect taken as topic of analysis

(from the role of the leader, to the people who accept or are affected by the leader’s power to


influence, to the social or situational context where power is exercised),” (emphasis added) (p.

174). It is this social or situational context where power is exercised that will be the focus of the

present investigation’s analysis of power and culture.

Brown (1992) argues that because leaders help to create and manage organizational

culture, the leader’s power is a function of the organizational culture and vice-versa. Koslowsky

and Stashevsky (2005) examined the relationship between organizational values and social

power and found an interaction effect in that charismatic leaders in a complex work environment

rarely used punishment. Soft power strategies were more commonly used than harsh power

strategies in eliciting compliance from followers. Transactional leaders were also found to use

harsh strategies more frequently than transformational leaders. The authors found the lowest

usage of soft strategies from transactional leaders in routine environmental contexts.

Research indeed shows that leaders’ use of certain types of power varies depending upon

the context in which they are operating. Cope (1972) obtained differential results for faculty in

states of stress versus faculty who were non-stressed. Faculty who were not in state stress

reported greater reliance on legitimate, expert, and referent power bases. On the other hand,

faculty in states of stress reported greater reliance on positive and negative sanctions. Using

Gouldner’s description of cosmopolitans and locals, it was also found that locals perceived and

favored referent and legitimate power, whereas cosmopolitans emphasized the use of reward and

expert power (Cope, 1972).

An interaction between power and organizational culture has been demonstrated in

previous empirical research. Overbeck (2001) demonstrated that high-power participants who

were assigned to a more people-oriented organizational culture were better able to individuate

followers than high-power participants in a more product-oriented culture. This means the


organizational context in which high-power leaders operate determines the effectiveness of their

leadership since individuating followers focuses better on developing the [needs of the]

individual follower.

Ozcan, Karatas, Caglar and Polat (2014) conducted semi-structured interviews with

twenty academic department members of a university and found that leaders’ (administrators)

use of coercive, reward and legal power styles produced organizational cultures of bureaucracy

and power. Thus, not only does power interact with culture to impact follower outcomes, but

power can also lead to variations in organizational culture.

To further illustrate the organizational culture and power interaction, such that the

organizational cultural context is the backdrop within which power operates, Lumby (2012)

argues that power is manifest in covert organizational structures and processes, where culture

operates to define the context. Covert power, Lumby suggests, matches a description of

organizational culture which is “one structure for the negotiation of power exercised through

mundane everyday activity,” (Lumby, 2012, p. 581). For this reason, organizational culture

becomes a necessary focus of leaders. Lumby (2012) notes:

Culture is one structure for the negotiation of power exercised through mundane

everyday activity (Willis, 2008). It is one of the ‘dividing practices’ sought by

Foucault (2000b: 326) that cannot be escaped. An individual or organization may

determine to step outside an existing culture or to change it, but it remains the

defining point of reference (Bishop et al., 2006; Spicer & Böhm, 2007). Culture is

a fundamental shaping and disciplinary force on which organizations depend.

Culture and the divisions it embodies are therefore a necessary focus of leaders

and a particularly potent medium for those who aim to support social justice.

Thomas, Sargent, and Hardy (2011) discuss power-resistance relations as mechanisms in

the organizational cultural change process which determine whether an organization will

successfully meet change initiatives head-on. When organizational members are resistant to


power, the cultural change initiative suffers. The authors argue that communicative practices

between senior and middle managers largely determine the outcomes of cultural change

attempts. Thus, managerial behavior determines the outcomes of cultural initiatives and power,

or resistance thereto, determines how effective a cultural change process will be. That

managerial behavior such as the exercise of power will determine the organizational culture is a

concept related to the basic premise of the present investigation.

Hallett (2003) indicates that organizational culture emerges from those with the symbolic

power to define the situation, in other words leaders and other organizational members who

possess the power to shape organizational culture. Power is thus a function of the leader who

possesses it, and culture is shaped by the leader who possesses such power to define the situation

according to how they prefer to define it.

Organizational culture is the context in which a leader exercises this power. Hallett

(2003) proposes a symbolic power model and notes that this symbolic power is often unseen and

not as overt as the coercive power type in the social power bases examined here. Organizational

members often imbue others with symbolic power and legitimacy as a function of social

interactions. It is through these interactions that organizational culture operates because certain

practices and interactions have been predefined as valid by the culture.

Leadership must be examined from a cultural perspective because the cultural perspective

permeates every aspect of the organization, including its leadership (Giosa, 2009). Leaders

actually construct the organizational culture over time through their interactions which are

symbolically constructive of the culture, similar to the thesis outlined by Hallett (Giosa, 2009).

If organizational culture is constructed by the leader, and the leader exercises their own version

of social power, then the leader defines the situation. This is different from what is being


proposed in the present investigation. In the present investigation, there is the issue of the type

of power matched with a particular organizational culture and this interaction leads to differential

follower outcomes. Giosa notes that the “main task of the leader is the ‘management of

culture’,” (p. 172).

GLOBE Study

The effects of leadership in multiple cultural contexts is certainly not a novel concept, as

the GLOBE study (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) of 17,300

managers in 951 organizations representing 62 countries would attest (Hoppe, 2007). The

cultural dimensions examined in that study included Hofstede’s (1984) cultural dimensions of

power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, as well as others including

gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, and future and performance orientation. Thus the cultural

dimensions assessed national cultural differences and similarities rather than organizational

cultural differences and similarities in particular. Six leader styles emerged in the study,

including performance-oriented, team-oriented, participative, humane, autonomous, and self-

protective. Participative style is most closely aligned with adhocracy culture, whereas

autonomous style is most closely aligned with hierarchical culture. The country clusters were

grouped according to the degree to which they prefer one or the other of the six leader styles.

Both universal and culturally-contingent leader styles emerged, specifically 22 traits representing

the six leader styles were determined to be universally desirable across the country clusters.

Eight of the traits were considered undesirable across the country clusters, and the remaining 35

were culturally-contingent. One of the universally desirable traits, “informed”, represents a trait

that is similar to the concept of informational power presented in the present investigation

(Hoppe, 2007). This study taps into the leader exercising power in multiple cultural contexts.


Because “informed” is a universally desirable leadership trait, informational power is not going

to be used as a base of power in the present investigation.

Evidence for a Culture/Power Interaction

Organizational culture and power may interact to determine follower outcomes. Indeed,

Buble (2012) found a significant positive correlation between leader styles and organizational

culture. In addition, Gokce, Guney and Katrinli (2014) found evidence for an interaction

between perceptions of leader behavior and organizational culture on organizational

commitment, with a statistically significant relationship found between perceptions of leader

behavior and organizational culture. Pennington, Townsend, and Cummins (2003) found a

significant positive relationship for each of five leadership practices (challenging the process,

inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart)

with clan culture and a significant negative relationship for each of the five leadership practices

with market culture. A significant relationship was found between enabling others to act and

encouraging the heart and all four of the Cameron and Quinn (1999) organizational culture

profiles (clan, market, hierarchy and adhocracy).

One study to date has examined the role of another conceptualization of organizational

culture in the relationship of power bases to subordinate outcomes, namely job stress (Erkutlu,

Chafra, & Bumin, 2011). A total of 622 leader-subordinate dyads participated in the

investigation conducted by Erkutlu, Chafra, and Bumin (2011). Organizational culture was

measured using the Organizational Culture Profile by O’Reilly (1991), which identifies

aggressiveness and respect for people as aspects of organizational culture. The aggressiveness

aspect reflects the extent to which competitiveness is a shared value, whereas the respect for


people aspect reflects the extent to which fairness and tolerance are shared values. It was found

that the aggressiveness and respect for people aspects of organizational culture moderated the

positive relationship between harsh or positional power bases and job stress, such that

aggressiveness strengthened the relationship and respect for people weakened it. The respect for

people aspect of organizational culture also strengthened the negative relationship between the

soft or personal power bases and job stress. The present investigation is similar to this study in

that both examine the role of organizational culture in the relationship of power bases to

subordinate outcomes. However, the present investigation is unique and different from this

study in that the type of organizational culture model used is the Cameron and Quinn Competing

Values Framework and the subordinate outcomes studied include follower compliance and trust

and not the outcome of job stress.

Situational Context - Other Relevant Theories

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership posits that there is a situational contingency

upon which leadership effectiveness depends (Hill, 1969). Essentially, Fiedler posits an

interaction between the leader and situation will lead to differences in leader effectiveness

(Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985). According to Fiedler’s theory, there are eight situations a

leader might face in his or her efforts to exert power or influence over subordinates, and among

these the most favorable situation is one in which he or she has strong legitimate or position

power, good interactions with other members of the work group, and oversees a task which is

very organized and coordinated (Hill, 1969). The basic tenet is that of a situational contingency

determinant of leader effectiveness, which is the principal tenet of the present investigation – a

situational (cultural) contingency of leader’s use of power to elicit compliance and trust in

followers.


Schneider’s Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) model also has situational

contingencies. In his ASA theory, Schneider proposed that prospective employees are attracted

to organizations which are consistent with their values and beliefs, that organizations select

people to work for them based upon the prospective employees’ fit with the knowledge, skills,

abilities and other characteristics already manifested within the organizational membership, and

that the fit between the people and the place will ultimately be determined by a weeding-out

process in which those who do not fit with the organization are more likely to leave (Schneider,

Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). Thus, the fit between the people and the situation is critical, and the

organization’s culture largely reflects the people in it. This is what Schneider refers to as

“homogeneity of personality” within organizations (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995).

The present study will examine a similar question to that of Erkutlu, Chafra, and Bumin

(2011) using a different model of organizational culture. The organizational culture model of

Cameron and Quinn (1999) is most fitting for the present study because it is the most widely

used organizational culture model in the extant literature (Bellot, 2011). The four organizational

cultural types of Cameron and Quinn (1999) have not yet been examined to determine whether

the bases of social power function differently depending upon which type of organizational

culture is employed. By examining two of these culture types, the present study makes a

significant contribution to the literature. In addition, the current study will examine an expanded

set of outcomes when looking at the impact of power in these culture types.

The present study will examine the impact of four of the French and Raven power bases

and organizational culture on follower compliance and trust. The four power bases to be

examined include coercive and reward (harsh), and referent and expert (soft).

In sum, the effectiveness of the leader’s style depends upon the organizational cultural


context in which power is employed.

CHAPTER 4: Current Study

The present study will examine the impact of an interaction effect between four of the

French and Raven (1959) power bases and two organizational culture types of Cameron and

Quinn (1999) on the outcomes of follower compliance and trust. The methodology will employ

a video design in which 246 undergraduate psychology and management students view videos

online involving a college recruitment scenario for employment with a fictitious company.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. A main effect for Coercive Power will emerge such that compliance and trust

outcomes in the Coercive Power condition would be lower in adhocracy culture compared to a

hierarchical culture; this is because there is a misalignment of power with culture. A leader’s use

of coercive power creates in followers a lack of trust and unwillingness to comply in the

purportedly flexible and participatory adhocratic organizational system due to potential negative

outcomes such as, for example, punishment, demotion, or termination. The power type and

organizational culture must be aligned in order for the employee to comply (Mosaic Projects,

2014). The use of threat, force or punishment to influence follower compliance is anachronistic

with the cultural portrait an adhocratic organization is attempting to convey to its employees.

Hypothesis 2. A main effect for Coercive Power will emerge such that compliance and trust

outcomes in the Coercive Power condition would be higher in a hierarchical culture compared to

an adhocracy culture because there is an alignment of power with culture (Mosaic Projects,

2014). Hierarchical and often bureaucratic organizational systems support the organizational

structural instruments (e.g., performance appraisals, annual reviews, etc.) which allow leaders to

punish, to withdraw incentives the employee desires, and to be the “boss” by exercising authority


over employees.

Hypothesis 3. A main effect for Reward Power will emerge such that compliance and trust

outcomes in the Reward Power condition would be lower in an adhocracy culture compared to a

hierarchical culture because there is a misalignment of power with culture. A leader’s use of

reward power creates in followers a lack of trust and unwillingness to comply with the leader

because the leader’s potential to deny incentives is misaligned with the adhocratic cultural

characteristics of the organization and leads to cognitive dissonance emerging from the forced

compliance the employee is required to undergo with the leader and the organizational system

(Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). For instance, contrary to the popular economic theory that

incentives fuel performance outcomes, the use of monetary incentives to induce behavioral

compliance in employees might “backfire”, causing a lack of trust in the agent’s (leader’s) true

motivations and intentions (Gneezy, Meier, & Ray-Biel, 2011).

Hypothesis 4. A main effect for Reward Power will emerge such that compliance and trust

outcomes in the Reward Power condition would be higher in a hierarchical culture compared to

an adhocracy culture because there is an alignment of power with culture (Mosaic Projects,

2014). Hierarchical and often bureaucratic organizational systems support the organizational

structural instruments (e.g., bonus pay for work performed, additional commission incentives,

sales recognition ceremonies, etc.) which allow leaders to reward employees or remove

undesirable aspects of the work (e.g., place the employee on a different team, replace inefficient

assistants, etc.).

Hypothesis 5. A main effect for Expert Power will emerge such that compliance and trust

outcomes in the Expert Power condition would be higher in an adhocratic culture compared to a


hierarchical culture which is flexible and supports dynamic organizational systems (i.e.,

indicating alignment, Mosaic Projects, 2014), including, for example, continuing education for

employees and additional pay for advanced degrees obtained. That is, the more expertise a

leader possesses, the more it is aligned with the adhocratic culture and the more trust an

employee will place in the system and in the leader. Compliance will also be higher when expert

power is exercised in an adhocratic system because the employee trusts the leader’s judgment as

it relates to organizational decisions due to the leader’s consistency in manifesting the expert

behaviors the organization values.

Hypothesis 6. A main effect for Expert Power will emerge such that compliance and trust

outcomes in the Expert Power condition would be lower in a hierarchical culture compared to an

adhocracy culture which does not place tangible value on employees’ or leaders’ expertise (i.e.,

indicating misalignment, Mosaic Projects, 2014); rather, in such hierarchical systems an

organization values work experience and organizational tenure. For example, in governmental

institutions in which leaders happen to be elected officials, compliance with leaders’ requests and

trust in leaders is more likely to wane given the stagnant bureaucracy in which the leadership is

exercised (i.e., the hierarchical culture). Followers (i.e., employees) have little reason to trust the

rhetoric such leaders purport since the only stated aim of the leader and his or her cabinet is to

seek and obtain reelection by all means. This is evident in the “Trust Redefined” survey

conducted by Federal News Radio (conducted May 20, 2014) which indicates that less than 1%

of federal governmental employees have “complete trust” in the federal government itself, less

than 1% also have “complete trust” in their federal colleagues, and one survey respondent

indicated that “Management lies all the time to its employees” (Federal News Radio Survey,

2014: “Trust Redefined: Reconnecting Government and Its Employees”; n=~1900).


Hypothesis 7. A main effect for Referent Power will emerge such that compliance and trust

outcomes in the Referent Power condition would be higher in an adhocratic culture compared to

a hierarchical culture because flexible, dynamic and participatory adhocratic organizational

cultures are more likely to allow, for example, career advancement opportunities to employees

who admire the leader as a role model and seek to advance within the company (Refer to Tipton,

2016 regarding leadership aspirations which reflect the desire to effect change within the

organization).

Hypothesis 8. A main effect for Referent Power will emerge such that compliance and trust

outcomes in the Referent Power condition would be lower in a hierarchical culture compared to

an adhocracy culture because an employee’s desire to be like a leader, or to advance within the

organizational system, is misaligned with the hierarchy/bureaucracy which reflects an

organizational system that is stagnant and does not readily adapt to dynamic changes in the

internal and external organizational environment. “Particularly when there is a misalignment

between the organizational culture and the dynamic environment of which it is a part,”

adaptation is necessary (Carpenter, Bauer, & Erdogan, 2016). Adaptation comes in a variety of

forms, but in this study I refer to adaptation via, for example, employee advancement and career

development opportunities which reflect a learning culture (Gueldenberg & Konrath, n.d.).

To summarize my predictions, I hypothesize that there will be main effects which reveal

that a power type and organizational culture must be aligned in order to reveal higher compliance

and trust outcomes; when they are misaligned such that soft power bases are coupled with

hierarchical cultural environments and harsh power bases are coupled with adhocratic cultural

environments, the effects reflect decreased compliance and trust responses from followers.


CHAPTER 5: Method

Participants

Two-hundred forty-six (246) undergraduate psychology students at a large Northeastern

university participated in the research for course credit (Simon & Goes, 2012). Participants were

recruited through the undergraduate Psychology and Management participant pool. Participants

were asked to complete the questionnaires online and in-person using the survey tool in

Qualtrics.

Research Design

The four types of power and two types of culture chosen for the present investigation

combined to equal eight groups to which students were randomly assigned for participation in

this study. The table below describes the design and the breakdown into eight groups.

DESIGN

Table 1. Combinations of power and culture comprising the manipulation.

ADHOCRACY HIERARCHY

EXPERT EXPERT/ADHOCRACY EXPERT/HIERARCHY

REFERENT REFERENT/ADHOCRACY REFERENT/HIERARCHY

REWARD REWARD/ADHOCRACY REWARD/HIERARCHY

COERCIVE COERCIVE/ADHOCRACY COERCIVE/HIERARCHY

The methodology employed a video design in which the four types of power and two

types of organizational culture were acted out in videos for participants to watch in order to

examine their impact on followers. The manipulations of social power and organizational

culture were carried out using the presentation of a fictitious company and executive leader


involved in interactions. The presentation includes an organizational description, mission, vision

and values statements. These were created in order to make the social power and organizational

cultural manipulations realistic and rich for the participants as they prepare to answer the

questionnaires.

The PowerPoint contained descriptions of ARashi Corporation, a fictitious fashion

company. After the title slide containing the company’s name, ARashi, the next six slides

described the atmosphere at ARashi according to the company’s organizational culture (i.e.,

either hierarchy or adhocracy, along with additional fictitious company descriptions such as

“well-performing employees are recognized,” “work-life balance”, and so on). The video was

then introduced, which contained the social power base manipulation (i.e., either expert, referent,

reward, or coercive), using the script provided in the Scenario in Appendix B. The video

appeared on the next to last slide. The actor in the video was an African-American male, dressed

professionally in a dark suit and tie with white collar shirt. The final slide was actually entitled

“Company Culture”, and contained the specific manipulation of organizational culture using the

definitions adapted from Cameron and Quinn (2000).

First a pilot study was conducted on students in an Introductory Psychology class who

viewed the PowerPoint with embedded video during class hours for extra-credit at a

Southeastern college in the United States. Thereafter, the main study was conducted on

Psychology students who registered for research participation for course credit at a college in the

Northeastern United States.

Procedure

Pilot Study

A pilot study was carried out in order to assess whether the power and culture


manipulations were effective. The video and cultural scenarios were presented to 17 participants

in the lab. Participants were then asked to what extent the manipulations matched with the

definition of the type of power and culture being presented. Questions for the pilot study survey

appear in Appendix C.

The pilot study was used to determine whether the company description, including the

company name, is a place the participants would want to work. The results were used to

determine whether additional control variables were necessary.

Finally, the pilot study was used to ask open-ended questions that could potentially lead

to other additional questions in the actual data collection. For instance, participants were asked

“why” they selected the answers they did.

The fictitious company, ARashi Corporation, was described and its mission, vision and

values statements were provided. The organizational description appears in Appendix D. An

interaction between Mr. Smith and his direct report were provided. The scenario remained the

same across the power/culture manipulations except for the type of power and type of culture

being manipulated. The organization and leader descriptions appear in Appendices D and E.

For the video, an actor displayed the particular power base within the specific organizational

culture type using a predetermined script adapted from the descriptions in the independent

variable section below. With four different types of power and two different types of

organizational culture, there was a total of eight (8) power/culture combinations of independent

variable manipulations. Followers were asked to what extent they want to follow the leader (i.e.,

compliance) and how much they trust the leader (i.e., trust). Compliance was measured using

Rahim’s Compliance with Supervisor’s Wishes Scale. Trust was measured using the instrument

created for the purpose of the present investigation.


Main Study. Data in the main study were collected from two-hundred forty-six (246)

college students enrolled in Psychology courses for course credit (Simon & Goes, 2012). Data

were gathered using remote data collection using the internet Qualtrics survey tool utilized in the

Psychology and Management Participant Pool at Baruch College.

The manipulations of social power and organizational culture were carried out using the

presentation of a fictitious company and executive leader involved in interactions. The

presentation includes an organizational description, mission, vision and values statements. These

were created in order to make the social power and organizational cultural manipulations

realistic and rich for the participants as they prepare to answer the questionnaires.

The fictitious company, ARashi Corporation, was described and its mission, vision and

values statements were provided. The organizational description appears in Appendix D. An

interaction between Mr. Smith and his direct report was provided. The scenario remained the

same across the power/culture manipulations except for the type of power and type of culture

being manipulated. The organization and leader descriptions appear in Appendices D and E.

For the video, an actor displayed the particular power base within the specific organizational

culture type using a predetermined script adapted from the descriptions in the independent

variable section below. With four different types of power and two different types of

organizational culture, there were eight (8) power/culture combinations of independent variable

manipulations. Followers were asked to what extent they want to follow the leader (i.e.,

compliance) and how much they trust the leader (i.e., trust). Compliance was measured using

Rahim’s Compliance with Supervisor’s Wishes Scale. Trust was measured using the instrument

created for the purpose of the present investigation. Each of the 8 conditions appears in

Appendix B.


Independent Variables

Organizational Culture Adapted from Cameron and Quinn (2000), Organizational

Culture Assessment

The descriptions of organizational culture are provided by the organizational type

descriptions in Cameron and Quinn’s (2000) Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument.

These descriptions were a part of the video that was created to manipulate both organizational

culture and power base.

Adhocracy

The stimuli contained the following manipulation for the adhocracy culture groups:

The organization is a very dynamic entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick

their necks out and take risks. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to

exemplify entrepreneurship, innovation, or risk taking. The management style in the organization

is characterized by individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness. The glue that

holds the organization together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an

emphasis on being on the cutting edge. The organization emphasizes acquiring new resources

and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.

The organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or newest products. It is

a product leader and innovator.

Hierarchy

The stimuli contained the following manipulation for the hierarchy culture groups:

The organization is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally

govern what people do. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify

coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency. The management style in the


organization is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability

in relationships. The glue that holds the organization together is formal rules and policies.

Maintaining a smooth-running organization is important. The organization emphasizes

permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operations are important. The

organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling

and low-cost production are critical.

Culture was also conveyed as manifested in the organizational mission and values

statements provided in Appendix D.

Bases of Power Adapted from Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989)

Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989) developed definitions for each of the power bases. Their

definitions were as follows:

Reward power: the ability to administer to another things he or she desires or to remove

or decrease things he or she does not desire.

Coercive power: the ability to administer to another things he or she does not desire or to

remove or decrease things he or she does desire.

Referent power: the ability to administer to another feelings of personal acceptance or

approval.

Expert power: the ability to administer to another information, knowledge, or expertise.

A description of characteristics of leaders representing each of the power bases follows.

The power bases were manipulated using specifically worded statements in the scenario

that depicted an example usage of the power base. For reward power, a monetary reward was

offered for completion of the assignment. For coercive power, the threat of demotion was given

if the assignment was not completed. For referent power, the leader identified himself as a go-to


person in the event the employee needed assistance, and identified himself as a role-model. For

expert power, the student was referred to another department for their use of effective strategies

to achieve similar objectives. Refer to Appendix B for the Scenarios and manipulations.

Control Variables

Control variables were used in the study because of their potential confounding effects on

the findings for compliance and trust.

The control variables to be used include race, gender, whether the participant is U.S.

born, country of origin, how long the participant has been in the United States, amount of work

experience, and whether the participants have ever held a management position.

Dependent Measures

Compliance

Compliance was measured using the Compliance with Supervisor’s Wishes Scale by

Rahim (1988) which measures both attitudinal and behavioral components of compliance. This

scale uses items including “I comply with the directives of my superior” and “I prefer not to

comply with the directives of my superior” to measure behavioral and attitudinal compliance.

Both construct and criterion validities of this scale are adequate; internal consistency reliability

for the scale is above .80 (Rahim & Buntzman, 1989). Higher scores on this measure indicate

greater behavioral or attitudinal compliance [with the superior’s wishes] (Rahim & Buntzman,

1989). This measure appears in Appendix F.

Trust

Participants were asked how much they trust the leader, whether they support the leader

and whether the leader is supportive, and to what extent the leader is credible. This measure

appears in Appendix G. McCallister (1995) provided a trust questionnaire which served as a


guide in the development of the trust scale used in the present study.

CHAPTER 6: Results

Pilot Study

A total of seventeen (17) students participated in the pilot study for course credit in the

Introduction to Psychology and Basic Psychology classes at a local college in the Southeastern

United States.

Students were randomly assigned to receive an electronic version of a PowerPoint file for

one of the eight conditions manipulating both social power base (expert, referent, reward, and

coercive) and organizational culture (hierarchy and adhocracy).

Overall, students responded favorably that ARashi Corporation matched the company’s

description and that ARashi was a company for which they would want to work. One student

indicated the reason she did not want to work for ARashi, which was that she wanted to take a

different career path. Students commented that, “Arashi seems like a company that takes its

employees and customers into consideration and strives to meet their needs. Overall, it seems

like a great company to work for,” “Very well organized, nicely put together, very professional

representation for this business,” “To the point, clear and precise, very professional.”

Given the reaction that the fictitious company ARashi Corporation seems credible, it was

used for the main study company description.

Manipulation Checks

In response to the manipulations for each of the power types, the results were as follows:

Social Power

Expert Power

The expert power manipulation received mostly favorable responses. The manipulation


check question asked the students to answer yes or no to two questions, “Does the person who

served as the leader in the video seem like an expert?”, and “Did he demonstrate the ability to

administer to another information, knowledge, or expertise?” Four of five respondents answered

yes to the first question, with the fifth student providing no response at all, and all five students

answered yes to the second question.

Referent Power

The referent power manipulation check asked the students two yes/no questions: “Did the

leader demonstrate the ability to administer to another feelings of personal acceptance or

approval?” and “Did the leader appear to be someone who could be looked up to as a role

model?” The referent power manipulation check was successful. Three of four students

randomly assigned to the referent power condition answered yes to the first question, and 3 of 4

answered yes to the second question.

Reward Power

The reward power manipulation check was successful. The first question asked, “Does

the person who served as the leader in the video appear to be administering rewards?” Three of

five students randomly assigned to this condition responded yes. For the second question, “Did

he demonstrate the ability to administer to another things he or she desires or to remove or

decrease things he or she does not desire?” Two of five students answered yes. Although this

number of students did not represent a majority of the respondents, the reward power

manipulation was kept as-is in the main study because it was an obvious and straight-forward

manipulation of reward power, i.e., the provision of a monetary reward in the form of a bonus in

the event the employee successfully completed the assignment.

Coercive Power


The coercive power manipulation checks asked the students to answer yes or no to two

questions: “Did the leader demonstrate the ability to administer to another things he or she does

not desire or to remove or decrease things he or she does desire?” and “Did the leader appear to

be someone who could punish a subordinate?” The coercive power manipulation was successful.

All students randomly assigned (4) to this condition responded yes to both questions.

Organizational Culture

One student left the organizational culture manipulations completely blank and did not

respond to them, leaving a total of 16 students responding to the organizational culture

manipulation check, including eight (8) for hierarchy and eight (8) for adhocracy. The results for

the manipulation check for organizational culture were as follows:

Hierarchy

The hierarchy culture manipulation check contained three yes/no questions: “Did ARashi

Corporation appear to be a very controlled and structured place?”; “Did the leader exemplify

coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency”; and “Did the management style in the

organization appear to be characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability,

and stability in relationships?” All students randomly assigned to this condition (8 students)

responded favorably to all the first two questions. One student, participant number 2, answered

no to the third question, which asked, “Did the management style in the organization appear to

be characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in

relationships?” This data provides ample support that the manipulation of hierarchical culture

type worked and was kept the same for the main study.

Adhocracy

The first question asked whether ARashi Corporation appeared to be a dynamic


entrepreneurial place. Most participating students responded favorably. No data was provided

for two of the students, and one student answered no, for a total of six (6) favourable responses.

For the second question, which asked whether the leader exemplified entrepreneurship,

innovating, and/or risk taking, most (6 of 9) students responded that the leader did exemplify

entrepreneurship, innovating, and/or risk taking. There was no data for two of the students, and

one student answered no.

In summary, the ARashi Corporation depiction using the PowerPoint file containing the

company description and video appears to be a good manipulation for social power and

organizational culture. All manipulation checks for the four social power bases and two

organizational culture conditions received mostly favorable responses. Actual response data for

the pilot study is provided in Table 1 below.

EF

FE

CT

S O

F S

OC

IAL

PO

WE

R A

ND

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

AL

CU

LT

UR

E

57

Table 1. Pilot Study Responses

Organizational

Culture

Social Power Base

Coercive Power Reward Power Expert Power Referent Power

Hierarchical

Culture

Group 1

Q#1 – Does the video you

just viewed appear to

match the company

description provided?

No = 2

_____________________

Q#2: Does the company

description of ARashi,

including the company

name, describe a place for

which you would want to

work? Yes = 2

_____________________

Manipulation Check

COERCIVE POWER

Did the leader

demonstrate the ability to

administer to another

things he or she does not

desire or to remove or

decrease things he or she

does desire? Yes = 2

_____________________

Did the leader appear to

be someone who could

punish a subordinate? Yes

Group 2


just viewed appear to match

the company description

provided? Yes = 1

No Response = 1

______________________






work? Yes = 1; No

Response = 1

______________________

Manipulation Check

REWARD POWER

Does the person who served

as the leader in the video

appear to be administering

rewards?Yes =1, No = 1

Did he demonstrate the

ability to administer to

another things he or she

desires or to remove or


Group 3



match the company

description provided? Yes

= 2

_____________________






work? Yes = 2

_____________________

Manipulation Check

EXPERT POWER

Does the person who

served as the leader in he

video seem like an expert?

Yes = 2



another information,

knowledge, or expertise?

Yes = 2

_____________________

Group 4



match the company


= 2

_____________________






work? Yes = 2

_____________________

Manipulation Check

REFERENT POWER

Did the leader



feelings of personal

acceptance or approval?

Yes = 2


be someone who could be

looked up to as a role

model?

EF

FE

CT

S O

F S

OC

IAL

PO

WE

R A

ND

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

AL

CU

LT

UR

E

58

= 2

_____________________

HIERARCHICAL

CULTURE

Did ARashi Corporation

appear to be a very

controlled and structured

place? Yes = 2

_____________________

__

Did the leader exemplify

coordinating, organizing,

or smooth-running

efficiency? Yes = 2

_____________________

__

Did the management style

in the organization appear

to be characterized by

security of employment,

conformity, predictability,

and stability in

relationships? Yes = 1,

No = 1

does not desire?

Yes = 2

______________________

HIERARCHICAL

CULTURE


appear to be a very


place? Yes = 2

______________________


coordinating, organizing, or

smooth-running efficiency?

Yes = 2

______________________






and stability in

relationships? Yes = 2

HIERARCHICAL

CULTURE


appear to be a very


place? Yes = 2

_____________________



or smooth-running

efficiency? Yes = 2

_____________________






and stability in


Yes = 1; No = 1

HIERARCHICAL

CULTURE


appear to be a very


place? Yes = 2

_____________________



or smooth-running

efficiency? Yes = 2

_____________________






and stability in


EF

FE

CT

S O

F S

OC

IAL

PO

WE

R A

ND

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

AL

CU

LT

UR

E

59

Adhocracy

Culture

Group 5



match the company


= 1; No = 1

_____________________






work? Yes = 1; No = 1

_____________________

Manipulation Check

COERCIVE POWER

Did the leader



things he or she does

notdesire or to remove or


does desire? Yes = 2

_____________________

__


be someone who could

punish a subordinate? Yes

= 2

Group 6


just viewed appear to match

the company description

provided? Yes = 1; No Data

= 1

______________________






work? Yes = 1; No Data =

1

______________________

Manipulation Check

REWARD POWER

Does the person who served

as the leader in the video

appear to be administering

rewards? No = 1; No Data

= 1

______________________

__



another things he or she

desires or to remove or


does not desire?

Group 7



match the company


= 1; No Response = 1

_____________________

__






work? Yes = 3

_____________________

Manipulation Check

EXPERT POWER

Does the person who

served as the leader in the

video seem like an expert?

Yes = 2; No = 1

_____________________



another information,

knowledge, or expertise?

Yes = 3

Group 8



match the company


= 1; No = 1

_____________________

__






work? Yes = 2

_____________________

Manipulation Check

REFERENT POWER

Did the leader



feelings of personal


Yes= 2


be someone who could be

looked up to as a role

model?

Yes = 2

EF

FE

CT

S O

F S

OC

IAL

PO

WE

R A

ND

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

AL

CU

LT

UR

E

60

ADHOCRACY

CULTURE


appear to be a dynamic,

entrepreneurial place?

Yes = 1; No = 1


entrepreneurship,

innovating, and/or risk

taking?

Yes = 1; No = 1

No = 1; No Data = 1

ADHOCRACY CULTURE




Yes = 1; No Data = 1


entrepreneurship,


taking?

Yes = 1; No Data = 1

ADHOCRACY

CULTURE




Yes = 2; No Response = 1


entrepreneurship,


taking?

Yes = 2; No Response = 1

ADHOCRACY

CULTURE




Yes = 2


entrepreneurship,


taking?

Yes = 2


Main Study

The target sample size was two hundred forty-six (target n=246) participants. However,

due to technical difficulties, eight students were unable to complete the entire survey. The final

sample size was two hundred thirty-eight (n=238) participants.

Statistical methods

Two main study constructs were operationalized using two scales for compliance and

trust. Before using the aggregate score on these items for respective constructs for further

analysis, reliability of these scales was assessed. Reliability is a measure of consistency and high

correlation of the scores or response with repeated administration of the scale to same set of

respondents. Reliability of total trust and compliance scales was measured using Cronbach’s

alpha measure, which is a measure of internal consistency of the scale. Generally, Cronbach’s

alpha value of 0.70 or higher is considered as satisfactory evidence for high reliability of the

scale (Hair et. al, 2010).

Data on aggregate score of total compliance and total trust were summarized using

measures of central tendency and dispersion including, mean, standard deviation, minimum and

maximum. This is reported across different power types and culture styles. To test the study

hypotheses of effects of combinations of power types and culture styles, the MANOVA

statistical model was used. This is a multivariate statistical method with total compliance and

total trust taken as multiple dependent variables and combinations of categories of power and

culture styles as independent factor variables. MANOVA assumes normality of distribution of

each dependent variable and equality of covariance matrices across groups or levels of the factor.

To ensure normality of distribution of dependent variables, first assessment of outliers

was done using the univariate approach using box plots. In the boxplots, Tukey’s hinges and


interquartile ranges were obtained for the total compliance and total trust score per group. Any

value that was larger than the 75% percentile Tukey’s hinge added to 1.5 times the interquartile

range was deemed an outlier, as was any value that was smaller than the 25% percentile Tukey’s

hinge added to 1.5 times the interquartile range. The Mahalanobis distance measure was used to

determine if there were any multivariate outliers. This was done using a linear regression with

the Group ID as the dependent variable and the two scales (i.e., total compliance and total trust)

as the independent variables; the independent variables and dependent variables were switched in

the linear regression function in SPSS which calculates Mahalanobis distance because the Group

variable, a string variable (i.e., an alphanumeric variable rather than simply numeric) cannot be

used in the independent variable feature in the linear regression analysis. The probability of

getting a Mahalanobis distance value as large as the one observed for each case was calculated

using the chi-square distribution with two degrees of freedom. The normality assumption for

each dependent variable per group was tested using the Shapiro - Wilk’s test. In this test, the null

hypothesis of normality of the data was tested against the alternative that it is not normal. A p-

value higher than 0.05 would indicate that the null hypothesis could not be rejected and the data

does not report significant departure from normality.

Assumption of equality of covariance matrices was tested using the Box’s M test. In this

test, null hypothesis Ho: Covariance matrix of dependent variables is same across groups is

tested against the alternate hypothesis H1: Covariance matrix of dependent variables is not the

same across groups.

Results

Little’s Missing Completely at Random Test (Little’s MCAR Test) was performed using

the SPSS statistical package. Expectation Maximization (EM) was run to test the hypothesis that


data were missing completely at random from the data set. Because the Little MCAR test did not

reveal statistically significant values (Chi Square = 474.60, DF = 420, Significance = .034), I

determined that the missing data were missing completely at random from the data set.

Reliability of Scales

Compliance Scale Reliability

The compliance scale contained eleven total items, three of which were reverse scored

because they were negatively worded. The reliability of the total compliance scale was very

high, with a Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.916 (10 items). A total compliance variable was then created

by transforming the data, including reverse scored items, into a new variable in SPSS.

Trust Scale Reliability

The trust scale contained five total items, none of which were reverse scored because all

were positively worded statements. The trust scale also demonstrated high reliability (α = 0.847,

5 items). A total trust variable was then created by transforming the data into a new variable in

SPSS.

Descriptive Statistics

For total compliance score, the highest average was demonstrated by the respondents in

the Coercive/Hierarchy Group 2 (M = 47.765, SD = 9.079), while the lowest average was

demonstrated by the respondents in the Reward/Hierarchy Group 1 (M = 43.880, SD = 6.139).

Similarly, the highest total trust score was demonstrated by the respondents in the

Coercive/Hierarchy Group 2 (M = 21.029, SD = 4.706). In contrast, the lowest score was

demonstrated by respondents in the Reward/Adhocracy Group 8 (M = 17.966, SD = 4.346). The

descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum) for each one of the

eight groups for the total compliance and total trust scores are presented in Table 2.


Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables

Total Compliance Total Trust

Power Group Mean SD Max Min Mean SD Max Min

Reward Adhocracy 42.690 8.885 14 56 17.966 4.346 1 27

Hierarchy 43.880 6.139 31 55 19.720 4.098 13 29

Coercive Adhocracy 45.364 6.470 30 57 20.636 4.457 12 32

Hierarchy 47.765 9.079 31 71 21.029 4.706 14 32

Expert Adhocracy 46.733 8.229 31 71 20.200 3.547 15 32

Hierarchy 45.074 8.176 27 62 19.037 5.080 3 27

Referent Adhocracy 44.774 6.845 31 59 19.516 3.767 12 28

Hierarchy 45.379 9.225 29 66 19.035 3.986 12 28

Assumptions Validation

Box plots for the total compliance and the total trust scores, per group, are presented in

Figures 2 and 3 respectively. There was one extreme outlier removed from Group 8, both for the

total compliance score and total trust score.


Figure 2. Box-plots for the total compliance score per group

Figure 3. Box-plots for the total trust score per group


To accurately identify the outliers, the Tukey’s hinges and interquartile ranges were

obtained for the total compliance and total trust score per group. Any value that was larger than

the 75% percentile Tukey’s hinge added to 1.5 times the interquartile range was deemed an

outlier, as was any value that was smaller than the 25% percentile Tukey’s hinge added to 1.5

times the interquartile range. There were five outliers in Group 8, one outlier in Group 3, one

outlier in Group 5 and one outlier in Group 6, respectively. These were removed from further

analysis. Mahalanobis distance measure, based on a cut-off probability lower than 0.001,

indicated that there were no multivariate outliers. Results of Shapiro – Wilk’s test for normality

are reported in Table 3. Both dependent variables, except for compliance in group 5, reported p

value more than .05 in each group. Therefore, the normality assumption is satisfied.

Table 3. Normality Tests for the Dependent Variables per

Group

Variable Group Statistic df p

Total Compliance 1.00 .959 25 .401

2.00 .980 34 .778

3.00 .975 26 .763

4.00 .972 29 .604

5.00 .922 33 .020

6.00 .973 29 .647

7.00 .974 31 .629

8.00 .962 24 .472

Total Trust 1.00 .952 25 .271


2.00 .945 34 .090

3.00 .975 26 .762

4.00 .963 29 .384

5.00 .973 33 .555

6.00 .946 29 .145

7.00 .947 31 .132

8.00 .957 24 .377

The equality of covariance matrices was tested using the Box’s M test. The null

hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across

groups could not be rejected, F (21, 154975.674) = 1.403, Box’s M = 30.357, p = 0.104. Thus the

equality of covariance matrices assumption was met. Lastly, the equality of error variances was

tested using the Levene’s test. The null hypothesis that the error variances of the dependent

variable is equal across groups could not be rejected for the compliance scale (F (7,223) = 2.029,

p = 0.053) or the trust scale (F (7,223) = 2.012, p = 0.058). Thus, the equality of error variances

assumption was met for both the compliance and the trust scales.

Multicollinearity between the dependent variables was assessed by running a paired

Pearson correlation test. The results indicated that the dependent variables were moderately

correlated, r = 0.625, p < 0.001. As the dependent variables were not strongly correlated, the

results indicated an absence of multicollinearity.

Hypothesis Testing

One-way MANOVA was used, with the total compliance and total trust scales as the

dependent variables, and the group as the independent variables. The results indicated that there


were no statistically significant results in total compliance and total trust scales based on the

eight combinations of power and culture groups, F (14,444) = 0.967, p = 0.483; Wilk's Λ =

0.942, partial η2 = 0.030. The estimated marginal means for the total compliance and total trust

scales are presented in Figures 4 and 5. The follow-up ANOVAs were not statistically significant

for the total compliance scale (F (7,231) = 0.715, p = 0.660, partial η2 = 0.022) or the total trust

scale (F (7,231) = 1.223, p = 0.291, partial η2 = 0.037). Thus, there were no statistically

significant differences in terms of total trust scale or total compliance scale between the eight

combinations of power and culture groups, indicating that hypotheses one through eight were not

supported by the data.

Figure 4. Marginal means for the total compliance scale per group


Figure 5. Marginal means for the total trust scale per group

To determine if the demographic characteristics were confounding factors, a secondary

MANOVA was run with the combinations of power and culture groups, as well as the

demographic characteristics as fixed factors. The demographic characteristics included were

race, gender, country of origin (US or other), length of time living in the US, length of work

experience and managerial position experience. The results indicated that there were no

statistically significant results in total compliance and total trust scales based on the eight

combinations of power and culture groups, F (14,214) = 0.331, p = 0.989; Wilk's Λ = 0.958,

partial η2 = 0.021. Similarly, the demographic characteristics were not statistically significant.

The results are presented in Table 4.


Table 4. Results of MANOVA Model Effects Including Demographic Factors

Group Wilks' Lambda F df p Partial η2

Intercept .193 223.783 2 <.001 .807

Group .958 0.331 14 .989 .021

Ethnicity .983 0.231 8 .985 .009

Gender .960 2.242 2 .111 .040

US origin 1.000 0.016 2 .985 <.001

Length in US .953 0.65 8 .735 .024

Work Experience Length .934 0.621 12 .823 .034

Management Position

Experience .972 1.524 2 .223 .028

T-Tests of Differences Between Groups

Table 5 reports results of independent samples t test comparing compliance score for

each type of power across adhocracy and hierarchy styles. Table 6 reports these results for the

trust construct. For all power types and for both compliance and trust dependent variables, p

value of the test was more than .05 (p = >.05). This indicates that the null hypothesis of no

significant difference in mean compliance or trust score between adhocracy and hierarchy styles

for each type of power cannot be rejected at .05 level of significance.


Table 5. Comparison of Compliance Across Adhocracy and Hierarchy Styles

Power Group Mean SD t df p

Coercive Adhocracy 45.364 6.470 1.604 66 .114

Hierarchy 47.765 9.079

Reward Adhocracy 42.690 8.885 .564 52 .575


Expert Adhocracy 46.733 8.229 -.762 55 .449


Referent Adhocracy 44.774 6.845 .290 58 .773

/Hierarchy 45.379 9.225

Table 6. Comparison of Trust Across Adhocracy and Hierarchy Styles

Power Group Mean SD t df p

Coercive Adhocracy 20.636 4.457 .351 65 .727


Reward Adhocracy 17.966 4.346 1.518 52 .135


Expert Adhocracy 20.200 3.547 -1.010 55 .317


Referent Adhocracy 19.516 3.767 -.481 58 .632



Univariate ANOVA

A univariate ANOVA was run in SPSS in order to determine whether there were

between-subjects effects for Group. If significant, this would be an interaction effect between

organizational culture type and power type.

The table below presents the tests of between-subjects effects by group for one of the

dependent variables, total compliance. None of these effects were significant.

Table 7. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: TotalCompliance

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 565.490a 7 80.784 1.137 .340

Intercept 480359.005 1 480359.005 6763.368 .000

Group 565.490 7 80.784 1.137 .340

Error 16406.459 231 71.024

Total 503380.000 239

Corrected Total 16971.950 238

a. R Squared = .033 (Adjusted R Squared = .004)

Table 8 below presents Estimated marginal means by group for Total Compliance.

Table 8. Estimated Marginal Means by Group


Group Mean Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 43.880 1.686 40.559 47.201

2 47.765 1.445 44.917 50.612

3 45.074 1.622 41.878 48.270

4 45.379 1.565 42.296 48.463

5 44.118 1.445 41.270 46.965

6 46.733 1.539 43.702 49.765

7 44.774 1.514 41.792 47.756

8 42.690 1.565 39.606 45.773


Figure 6. Estimated Marginal Means of Total Compliance

Table 9 presents Multiple Comparisons by Group for Total Compliance.

Table 9. Multiple Comparisons


Tukey HSD

(I) Group (J) Group

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.



1 2 -3.8847 2.22033 .655 -10.6766 2.9071

3 -1.1941 2.33911 1.000 -8.3493 5.9611


4 -1.4993 2.30001 .998 -8.5349 5.5363

5 -.2376 2.22033 1.000 -7.0295 6.5542

6 -2.8533 2.28219 .916 -9.8344 4.1277

7 -.8942 2.26540 1.000 -7.8239 6.0355

8 1.1903 2.30001 1.000 -5.8452 8.2259

2 1 3.8847 2.22033 .655 -2.9071 10.6766

3 2.6906 2.17243 .920 -3.9547 9.3359

4 2.3854 2.13026 .952 -4.1309 8.9017

5 3.6471 2.04398 .631 -2.6053 9.8995

6 1.0314 2.11102 1.000 -5.4261 7.4888

7 2.9905 2.09285 .843 -3.4114 9.3924

8 5.0751 2.13026 .255 -1.4413 11.5914

3 1 1.1941 2.33911 1.000 -5.9611 8.3493

2 -2.6906 2.17243 .920 -9.3359 3.9547

4 -.3052 2.25380 1.000 -7.1995 6.5890

5 .9564 2.17243 1.000 -5.6889 7.6017

6 -1.6593 2.23561 .996 -8.4978 5.1793

7 .2999 2.21847 1.000 -6.4863 7.0860

8 2.3844 2.25380 .965 -4.5098 9.2786

4 1 1.4993 2.30001 .998 -5.5363 8.5349

2 -2.3854 2.13026 .952 -8.9017 4.1309

3 .3052 2.25380 1.000 -6.5890 7.1995

5 1.2617 2.13026 .999 -5.2547 7.7780

6 -1.3540 2.19466 .999 -8.0674 5.3593

7 .6051 2.17719 1.000 -6.0548 7.2650

8 2.6897 2.21318 .927 -4.0803 9.4596

5 1 .2376 2.22033 1.000 -6.5542 7.0295

2 -3.6471 2.04398 .631 -9.8995 2.6053

3 -.9564 2.17243 1.000 -7.6017 5.6889

4 -1.2617 2.13026 .999 -7.7780 5.2547

6 -2.6157 2.11102 .919 -9.0731 3.8418

7 -.6565 2.09285 1.000 -7.0584 5.7453

8 1.4280 2.13026 .998 -5.0883 7.9443

6 1 2.8533 2.28219 .916 -4.1277 9.8344

2 -1.0314 2.11102 1.000 -7.4888 5.4261

3 1.6593 2.23561 .996 -5.1793 8.4978


4 1.3540 2.19466 .999 -5.3593 8.0674

5 2.6157 2.11102 .919 -3.8418 9.0731

7 1.9591 2.15836 .985 -4.6432 8.5614

8 4.0437 2.19466 .592 -2.6697 10.7570

7 1 .8942 2.26540 1.000 -6.0355 7.8239

2 -2.9905 2.09285 .843 -9.3924 3.4114

3 -.2999 2.21847 1.000 -7.0860 6.4863

4 -.6051 2.17719 1.000 -7.2650 6.0548

5 .6565 2.09285 1.000 -5.7453 7.0584

6 -1.9591 2.15836 .985 -8.5614 4.6432

8 2.0845 2.17719 .980 -4.5754 8.7444

8 1 -1.1903 2.30001 1.000 -8.2259 5.8452

2 -5.0751 2.13026 .255 -11.5914 1.4413

3 -2.3844 2.25380 .965 -9.2786 4.5098

4 -2.6897 2.21318 .927 -9.4596 4.0803

5 -1.4280 2.13026 .998 -7.9443 5.0883

6 -4.0437 2.19466 .592 -10.7570 2.6697

7 -2.0845 2.17719 .980 -8.7444 4.5754

Based on observed means.

The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 71.024.

The same Univariate ANOVA analysis was run for the aggregate Trust score, Total

Trust. None of the F values for this test were significant for Total Trust, as demonstrated in

Table 10 below.

Table 10. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: TotalTrust

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 209.526a 7 29.932 1.637 .126

Intercept 91013.088 1 91013.088 4978.026 .000

Group 209.526 7 29.932 1.637 .126

Error 4205.083 230 18.283

Total 96717.000 238

Corrected Total 4414.609 237


a. R Squared = .047 (Adjusted R Squared = .018)

Table 11 presents the Estimated Marginal Means for the Total Trust scale.

Table 11. Estimated Marginal Means by Group


Group Mean Std. Error



1 19.720 .855 18.035 21.405

2 21.029 .733 19.585 22.474

3 19.037 .823 17.416 20.658

4 19.034 .794 17.470 20.599

5 20.636 .744 19.170 22.103

6 20.200 .781 18.662 21.738

7 19.516 .768 18.003 21.029

8 17.966 .794 16.401 19.530


Figure 7. Estimated Marginal Means of Total Trust

Finally, Table 12 presents Multiple Comparisons by Group for Total Trust.

Table 12. Multiple Comparisons


Tukey HSD

(I) Group (J) Group

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.



1 2 -1.3094 1.12652 .942 -4.7555 2.1367

3 .6830 1.18679 .999 -2.9475 4.3134

4 .6855 1.16695 .999 -2.8842 4.2553

5 -.9164 1.13373 .993 -4.3845 2.5518

6 -.4800 1.15791 1.000 -4.0221 3.0621

7 .2039 1.14939 1.000 -3.3122 3.7199


8 1.7545 1.16695 .805 -1.8153 5.3242

2 1 1.3094 1.12652 .942 -2.1367 4.7555

3 1.9924 1.10222 .616 -1.3794 5.3641

4 1.9949 1.08082 .590 -1.3114 5.3012

5 .3930 1.04487 1.000 -2.8033 3.5894

6 .8294 1.07106 .994 -2.4470 4.1058

7 1.5133 1.06184 .845 -1.7350 4.7615

8 3.0639 1.08082 .092 -.2424 6.3702

3 1 -.6830 1.18679 .999 -4.3134 2.9475

2 -1.9924 1.10222 .616 -5.3641 1.3794

4 .0026 1.14350 1.000 -3.4955 3.5006

5 -1.5993 1.10958 .837 -4.9936 1.7950

6 -1.1630 1.13427 .970 -4.6328 2.3068

7 -.4791 1.12558 1.000 -3.9223 2.9641

8 1.0715 1.14350 .982 -2.4265 4.5696

4 1 -.6855 1.16695 .999 -4.2553 2.8842

2 -1.9949 1.08082 .590 -5.3012 1.3114

3 -.0026 1.14350 1.000 -3.5006 3.4955

5 -1.6019 1.08834 .822 -4.9312 1.7274

6 -1.1655 1.11350 .967 -4.5718 2.2407

7 -.4816 1.10464 1.000 -3.8608 2.8975

8 1.0690 1.12290 .980 -2.3660 4.5040

5 1 .9164 1.13373 .993 -2.5518 4.3845

2 -.3930 1.04487 1.000 -3.5894 2.8033

3 1.5993 1.10958 .837 -1.7950 4.9936

4 1.6019 1.08834 .822 -1.7274 4.9312

6 .4364 1.07864 1.000 -2.8633 3.7360

7 1.1202 1.06949 .966 -2.1514 4.3919

8 2.6708 1.08834 .221 -.6584 6.0001

6 1 .4800 1.15791 1.000 -3.0621 4.0221

2 -.8294 1.07106 .994 -4.1058 2.4470

3 1.1630 1.13427 .970 -2.3068 4.6328

4 1.1655 1.11350 .967 -2.2407 4.5718

5 -.4364 1.07864 1.000 -3.7360 2.8633

7 .6839 1.09508 .999 -2.6660 4.0338

8 2.2345 1.11350 .480 -1.1718 5.6407


7 1 -.2039 1.14939 1.000 -3.7199 3.3122

2 -1.5133 1.06184 .845 -4.7615 1.7350

3 .4791 1.12558 1.000 -2.9641 3.9223

4 .4816 1.10464 1.000 -2.8975 3.8608

5 -1.1202 1.06949 .966 -4.3919 2.1514

6 -.6839 1.09508 .999 -4.0338 2.6660

8 1.5506 1.10464 .855 -1.8285 4.9298

8 1 -1.7545 1.16695 .805 -5.3242 1.8153

2 -3.0639 1.08082 .092 -6.3702 .2424

3 -1.0715 1.14350 .982 -4.5696 2.4265

4 -1.0690 1.12290 .980 -4.5040 2.3660

5 -2.6708 1.08834 .221 -6.0001 .6584

6 -2.2345 1.11350 .480 -5.6407 1.1718

7 -1.5506 1.10464 .855 -4.9298 1.8285

Based on observed means.

The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 18.283.

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to assess the effects of four different types of social

power within two types of organizational culture on the outcomes of follower compliance and

trust. The findings from my study reveal several important implications for the study of social

power and organizational culture, which are pertinent to the organizational outcomes of

compliance and trust, two less frequently studied variables in relation to social power.

The hypotheses are discussed and Table 4 is re-presented below; none were statistically

significant.

Table 4. Results of MANOVA Model Effects Including Demographic Factors

Group Wilks' Lambda F df p Partial η2

Intercept .193 223.783 2 <.001 .807


Group .958 0.331 14 .989 .021

Ethnicity .983 0.231 8 .985 .009

Gender .960 2.242 2 .111 .040

US origin 1.000 0.016 2 .985 <.001

Length in US .953 0.65 8 .735 .024

Work Experience Length .934 0.621 12 .823 .034

Management Position

Experience .972 1.524 2 .223 .028

Hypothesis 1 - Compliance and trust outcomes in the Coercive Power condition would be low in

adhocracy culture compared to a hierarchy culture.

Hypothesis 1 did not receive support from the total compliance scale. Hypothesis 1

predicted that the Coercive/Adhocracy group would have lower compliance and trust scores due

to the misalignment between power and culture; however, the Mean compliance scale score for

this group was M=45.364, SD=6.470. Perhaps an item by item analysis of the questions would

reveal different findings.

It is interesting to note that the compliance scale items did not receive lower responses

from the coercive/adhocracy group. This is a very interesting finding, since a leader’s use of

coercive power would appear to create in followers a lack of trust and unwillingness to comply

in the purportedly flexible and participatory adhocratic organizational system due to potential

negative outcomes such as, for example, punishment, demotion, or termination. Perhaps the


sample used in the present study was an inaccurate representation of employees in a fashion

company or corporate environment. There is also the potential that other forms of organizationl

culture which are emerging in recent literature would have revealed different effects (Refer to,

for instance, ‘holacracy’ culture, Bernstein, Bunch, Canner, & Lee, 2016).

Another interesting finding was that compliance responses were so high, yet trust

responses so low. According to Mosaic Projects, 2014, the power type and organizational

culture must be aligned in order for the employee to comply. But in the coercive/adhocracy

group, the compliance responses did not support this theoretical assertion. While it is true that

the use of threat, force or punishment to influence follower compliance is anachronistic with the

cultural portrait an adhocratic organization is attempting to convey to its employees, it is also

possible that employees who need work in order to thrive or afford their own necessities, would

comply despite these circumstances. In fact, Rahim and Afza (2001) found no significant

correlations between coercive power and compliance, commitment, or satisfaction outcomes.

Rahim, Kim, and Kim (1994) conducted an investigation using a comparison approach

between U.S. and South Korean managers. U.S. Managers rated the use of coercive power as the

most frequently used form of supervision, while South Korean managers listed it as fifth most

used with expert, referent, legitimate and reward power as the top four. The means for the power

bases for the two countries were significantly different (Rahim, Kim, & Kim, 1994).

Hypothesis 2 - Compliance and trust outcomes in the Coercive Power condition would be high

in a hierarchical culture compared to an adhocracy culture.

Hypothesis 2 was supported by the averages, but the findings from the MANOVA,


ANOVA and T-tests did not reveal any statistically significant results for the total compliance or

total trust scale scores. The greatest total compliance average responses were given by Group 2,

the Coercive/Hierarchy group (M=47.765, SD=9.079). This finding, despite that it did not

provide full support for the hypothesis, is worth noting because the extant literature buttresses

this notion more often than not.

In an experiment utilizing introductory psychology undergraduates, Schlenker, Nacci,

Helm and Tedeschi (1976) examined reactions to coercive power in the form of written message

threats and rewards as fulfillments of promises. The authors found that subjects exhibited

greater compliance with coercive threats when the promises made were of higher credibility, and

more often indicated that they intended to comply with the influencer.

Michener and Burt (1975) also found that compliance with authority figures was high

when coercive power in two-status hierarchical environments (i.e., low-level subordinates

reporting to high-level authority figures) was high.

These findings suggest that compliance, which is similar to obedience to authority in the

Milgram paradigm (Blass & Schmitt, 2001), would be higher in the coercive power condition,

especially within a hierarchical culture. However, Blass & Schmitt (2001) found that subject’s

compliance was higher in the expert and legitimate power conditions.

In sum, hypotheses 1 and 2 may indicate that regardless of the organizational culture

within which they are embedded, the power type of coercive power will yield higher compliance

and trust outcomes than other types. As mentioned previously, when coercive power is used in

an appropriate manner, the effects can be beneficial on performance and other criterion measure


(Podsakoff & Schreisheim, 1984).

Hypotheses 3 & 4

Hypothesis 3 stated that compliance and trust outcomes in the Reward Power condition

would be lower in an adhocracy culture compared to a hierarchical culture. The lowest total

compliance average was registered by the respondents in Reward/Adhocracy Group 8 (M =

42.690, SD = 6.139). Similarly, the lowest total trust average was registered by respondents in

Reward/Adhocracy Group 8 (M = 17.966, SD = 4.346).

Hypothesis 4 stated that compliance and trust outcomes in the Reward Power condition

would be high in a hierarchical culture compared to an adhocracy culture. The responses from

Group 1, the reward/hierarchy group, for the compliance variable, however, did not support

hypothesis 4. Instead of being high, the averages for total compliance (M = 43.880) and total

trust (M = 19.72) for Group 1 were relatively low. Hypothesis 4 was not confirmed for the total

compliance scale score averages nor was it confirmed for the MANOVA, ANOVA or T-tests.

Refer to Schlenker, Nacci, Helm and Tedeschi (1976), Fontaine and Beerman (1977), and

Rodricues and Lloyd (1998) for a more detailed discussion on reward power and compliance

outcomes. Rahim and Buntzman (2001) note that reward power was positively correlated with

various styles of conflict resolution with subordinates, but found no significant results for reward

power and compliance outcomes. The extant empirical literature lacks evidence of relationships

between reward power and trust. Fontaine and Beerman (1977) noted that legitimate, coercive

and expert power lead to low levels of compliance and satisfaction, and that informational,

referent and rewarding power lead to high levels of these variables.

Further research is needed to explore the effects within varying organizational culture


contexts for reward power, especially because extant literature revealed that economic theories

are sometimes inaccurate when they suggest that the use of monetary incentives to induce

behavioral compliance in employees will consistently increase performance indicators and other

criterion measures that are beneficial to the organization. Instead, Gneezy, Meier, & Ray-Biel

(2011) noted that the effects of reward usage could “backfire” causing a diminished trust in the

leader due to attributions regarding his or her earnest motives.

Hypothesis 5 - Compliance and trust outcomes in the Expert Power condition would be higher in

an adhocratic culture compared to a hierarchical culture.

For the total compliance scale, Group 6 (i.e., the Expert/Adhocracy group) had the

second highest mean score (M = 46.733, SD=8.229). For the total trust scale, Group 6 had the

third highest mean score (M = 20.200, SD=3.547). The MANOVA, ANOVA, and T-tests

Hypothesis 5 results did not reveal any statistically significant findings for Hypothesis 5.

As predicted in Hypothesis 5, these findings conflict with others in the social power

literature. As mentioned in Atwater and Yammarino (1996), power and leadership behavior are

best measured from the perspective of the follower (Hollander & Offerman, 1990), because

“perceptions followers have of leaders' behavior and power influence follower behavior,”

(Atwater & Yammarino, p. 4). Fontaine and Beerman (1977) noted that legitimate, coercive and

expert power lead to low levels of compliance and satisfaction, and that informational, referent

and rewarding power lead to high levels of these variables. Lipman (2000) also suggested that

General Practitioner Clinicians with less expert power demonstrated greater compliance with

organizational system implementations such as rules and procedures. Furthermore, Ansari (1990)

noted that referent power was related to participative leadership style, coercive power was


related to authoritarian and bureaucratic styles, and expert power was related to a task-oriented

style. Frankel and Kassinove (1974) found the teacher’s compliance with school psychologists’

recommendations was unrelated to compliance or sex.

Perhaps the conflicting findings can be explained from an attributional perspective.

Rodricues and Lloyd (1998) conducted replication analyses of an earlier Rodricues (1995) study

and use their findings to explain the social power bases from an internal/external attributional

perspective for compliance inducement. The authors noted that internal, and thus controllable)

attributions could be made for the reward and referent power base’s inducement of compliance

behaviors, and thus expert and coercive power bases were not as likely to be explained by

internal attributions. The attributional theory originally proposed by Heider (1958) indicates that

people make internal attributions for other people’s behaviors, while attributing their own

behaviors to external causes or influences. This is the fundamental attribution error in social

psychology (Ross, 1977). If in fact reward and referent power base compliance inducement is

caused by internal factors and not the influencer, the leader, then the leader cannot be the sole

topic of study in investigations of social power. Follower attitudes and behaviors would also

have to be examined, along with situational context. In many of the questions on both the

compliance and trust scales used in this study, follower likes and dislikes were assessed.

Rahim and Afza (2001) corroborate the findings for Hypothesis 5 for organizational

outcomes other than compliance. Using a sample of U.S. accountants, Rahim and Afza (2001)

found that expert and referent power were positively correlated with organizational commitment

(Green, 1999), referent power was positively correlated with satisfaction, expert and referent

power were positively correlated with attitudinal compliance, and legitimate and referent power

were positively correlated with behavioral compliance. Rahim and Buntzman (1989) also found


that legitimate power was positively associated with behavioral and attitudinal compliance.

Other research also highlights that expert power is positively correlated with

trustworthiness, but that coercive power is not. Expert power was positively related to

trustworthiness of the faculty advisor in an educational setting, whereas coercive power was

negatively related to trustworthiness (Aguinis, Nesler, Quigley, Lee, & Tedeschi, 1996).

Hypothesis 6 - Compliance and trust outcomes in the Expert Power condition would be lower in

a hierarchical culture compared to an adhocratic culture.

There were no remarkable findings for total compliance (M = 45.074) or total trust (M =

19.037) scale items for Group 3, the Expert/Hierarchy Group, on hypothesis 6. The total

compliance score average was the fourth lowest among the means, and the total trust score

average was the third lowest among the means. Still, support was not provided for Hypothesis 6;

the MANOVA, ANOVA and T-test findings lacked statistical significance.

This finding suggests that additional research is needed to assess expert power and to

identify how it can be properly used as a soft power base within organizations. Training and

development for highly specialized skills necessary to fulfill the duties of complex organizational

roles is prevalent in the twenty-first century, and will continue to be. Thus, gaining and

maintaining one’s own expertise in a field of study is mandated for individual career success and

the overall achievement of organizational goals and objectives.

The importance of the expert power base in the field of Industrial/Organizational

Psychology cannot be overstated. These literatures buttress this notion:


Knowledge-Skills-Abilities-Other Characteristics (KSAO’s) literature widely

implemented throughout the Federal Government of the United States, The

United States Military, and the Office of Personnel Management (Wisecarver,

Schneider, Foldes, Cullen, & Zbylut, 2011).

Findings in the organizational learning literature on “Intelligent Leadership” in

“Knowledge-Based Organizations” (Gueldenberg & Konrath, n.d.)

“Knowledge Management” literature (Wong, 2005).

This concept is also heavily documented in the human resources management

literature on employee training and development with respect to what is now

referred to as a “career development culture” (Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne, Liden &

Bravo, 2011; Wickramaratne, 2013).

It is also evident in the human capital literature pertaining to the impact of

educational attainment on regional and other economies according to a report by

the Milken Institute (Devol, Shen, Bedroussian & Zhang, 2013).

The bottom line is that the impact of educational attainment is ubiquitous, both within the

company and in its dynamic environment.

Hypothesis 7 – Compliance and trust outcomes in the Referent Power condition would be high

in an adhocratic culture compared to a hierarchical culture.

The total compliance scale mean score for Group 7, the Referent/Adhocracy Group was

the third lowest among the averages (M = 44.774). The total trust scale mean score for Group 7

was the fourth lowest average (M = 19.516). These findings and those of the statistically

insignificant MANOVA, ANOVA and T-test do not provide support for Hypothesis 7.


These findings are, however, supported in the literature. As stated previously, Rahim and

Buntzman (2001) found that referent power was positively correlated with satisfaction with

supervision, but not compliance.

Referent power is a difficult construct to manipulate using self-report measures. This is

because survey respondents often fabricate their responses on psychology-related self-report

studies in order to appease a researcher. This is referred to as response bias in the psychology

literature (Dodd-McCue & Tartaglia, 2010). In another type of methodology and design, for

instance using case studies or interviews with persons whom a respondent actually admires and

regards as a role-model, the potential interactional relationship between referent power and

organizational culture could be assessed for follower outcomes, especially that of trust.

Hypothesis 8 - Compliance and trust outcomes in the Referent Power condition would be low in

a hierarchical culture compared to an adhocratic culture.

The findings for Group 4, the Referent/Hierarchy group, did not provide support for

Hypothesis 8. The total compliance scale mean score was the third highest among the averages

(M = 45.379). The total trust scale mean score was the second lowest (M = 19.035).

Hypothesis 8 predicted that because an employee’s desire to be like a leader, or to

advance within the organizational system is misaligned with the hierarchy/bureaucracy which

reflects an organizational system that is stagnant and does not readily adapt to dynamic changes

in the internal and external organizational environment, referent power within a hierarchical

culture would reflect low compliance and trust outcomes.

Leaders within organizations, especially corporations, are often dubbed as “charismatic”

or “aggressive” figures who represent such a highly elite group that reaching their potential from


within the organization is apparently an impossible feat.

Perhaps the actual finding from this study will buttress the need for future research on

referent power. Formal and informal mentoring programs, both within and outside of the

organization’s initiatives, promote advancement into higher level positions. Mendez-Morse

(2004) has examined mentors within the education sector using a case study methodology. The

mentors served as role models for Latina leaders. Mendez-Morse (2004) noted that the mentors

who played significant roles in the Latina leaders’ professional development had not actually

served as role models in a professional capacity. Rather, they came from a variety of

nonprofessional sources, including the community, the family, etc. The role models had been

chosen by the leaders based on their own specific needs.

Limitations

This study has limitations. First, the type of company used is a fashion company which may

not be attractive to some people. Second, the leader is a Black male, who despite his educational

and professional credentials solidifying his selection for the position, may still not be considered

an appropriate selection given his position within the company at the Executive level due to

prejudice. Indeed, most corporate Executives are White males. Lastly, because this study

consists mainly of lab results and data from undergraduates, it is difficult to ascertain whether the

findings are generalizable to the field where studies such as this would be useful. The study may

have revealed different findings if it were conducted in an actual corporation or governmental

entity or using an in-basket exercise with confederate actors. The findings reviewed in the

literature review here did, however, consist of both lab and field studies, which guided the

hypotheses of the present investigation.


Potential Confounders

Race

Race did not emerge as a potential confounder in the present analysis. The executive

depicted in the manipulation video is an African-American man who was portrayed to hold an

Executive leadership position within a large, successful corporation. This is an uncommon

scenario that could have potentially shocked the consciences of the participants, especially those

whose backgrounds are dissimilar from the leader. Research literature pertaining to unconscious

discrimination (Lyubansky, 2012), tokenism in small group dynamics due to disproportionate

representations of a majority group with one defining [i.e., in this instance, demographic] and

distinguishing characteristic, who regard the non-representative [i.e., in this instance, minority]

group member as a ‘token’ whose attributes become inaccurately stereotypical (Kanter, 2006),

and many others should be explored further for the potential unintentional psychological and

emotional reactions followers have to leadership by members of racial/ethnic minority groups.

The majority of the Fortune 500 landscape depicts a much more disproportionately White

male dominated organizational structure (Zweigenhaft, 2013). A sample of policy-planning

groups business roundtables revealed a startling 92.1% White majority, with the remaining mere

7.9% consisting of 5.1% Asians, 1.4% Latinos, and 1.4% African-Americans. White men still

dominated the landscape, making up 87.0% of the total sample (Zweigenhaft, 2013).

A discussion of the topic of diversity in corporate leadership in the United States should

include all members of diverse ethnic groups. This is especially relevant for the participant pool

in which data were collected. The 4-year college campus, located in Northeastern United States,

is one of the most diverse campuses in the U.S. In Fall 2010, the student body consisted of the

following racial/ethnic make-up:


Table 13. Ethnic Breakdown for Total Enrollment

White 37.6%

Asian 36.6%

Hispanic 14.4%

Black 11.2%

American Indian/Native 0.2%

There was an African-American male leader providing the instructions to the

respondents. This leads to the question of whether a leader and followers must be of similar

racial/ethnic backgrounds in order for followers to comply or trust the leader.

Empirical research related to perceptions of racial/ethnic minority leadership is accessible

in the literature. Logan (2011) studied the “White leader prototype” in the Public Relations field,

indicating that race might be the most dominant factor determining promotion into higher levels

within that field. Parker (1976) found that manager race and subordinate race, along with

majority/minority status within the group under supervision, all determined manager behavior

toward subordinates. Future research should be dedicated to these areas in the fields of

Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Social Psychology, Training and Education, Political

Science, and Sociology, among others.

Romero (2005) studied the effects of Hispanic ethnicity on perceptions of leaders. The

author’s study examined the effects of Hispanic ethnicity on how others perceive leaders and

their leader effectiveness. Findings revealed that Hispanic leaders were viewed as equivalent to

their Euro-American counterparts; however, when leader style and follower prototype of leader

style were mismatched, perceptions of leader effectiveness were significantly diminished


(Romero, 2005).

Romero’s (2005) study findings raise the question of whether African-American leaders

would be viewed as equivalent and equally as effective as their Caucasian counterparts. The

answers obtained in this study provide some snapshot; the “trust” variable was a key component

in bringing to light that many of the respondents had low trust responses to all trust scale items,

whether or not they complied. Trust scale item responses were markedly lower than those of

compliance. Edelman’s (2017) trust barometer survey reveals this trend in society as a whole

across national borders of over 25 markets, revealing that less than forty percent of respondents

defined Chief Executive Officers of corporations as credible, and less than thirty percent

responded in the same manner pertaining to officials within their own country’s government

(Edelman, 2017).

Despite the potential confounding limitations of race on studies of leadership, members

of racial/ethnic minority groups have made consistent strides in redefining and reshaping the

corporate landscape in the United States. Chief Executive Officers, Board Members, Executives,

Presidents, Vice-Presidents and political figures in federal, state, and local government have

demonstrated that leadership from within hierarchical institutions is not an impossible task to

surmount, despite overcoming obstacles in their professional advancement and in society. Future

research in this area could further explore methods for shaping members of all racial/ethnic

groups into persons who can receive feedback, mentoring, professional development, and

support or sponsorship from members of any and all racial/ethnic minority groups, and further

attempt to eradicate the deleterious effects of racism on society and on our future generations’

experience of it. Surely the situational context of organizational culture plays a significant role

in these efforts, as diversity initiatives and other avenues for professional development and


advancement for racial/ethnic minorities are critically and directly related to the desired

outcomes.

Gender

The potential confounding factor Gender did not emerge as a significant confounder for

the total compliance or total trust scale scores. Studies of gender differences and leadership have

generally focused on perceptions of women as leaders. There is an obvious necessity for future

research in this area, captured by the following quote from the book Inclusive Leadership by

Edwin Hollander:

“Gender provides an example of the effect of expectations…Comparisons between

women and men in the leader role often fail to consider that women begin with an initial

hurdle to attaining legitimacy, even though neither men nor women appear to be more

‘effective’ as leaders across mixed gender situations. Individual differences among

leaders, including differences in style and self-oriented actions, are perceived as real and

do play a role in follower satisfaction and performance outcomes,” (Hollander, 2009,

p.69)

Smith, Matkin and Fritz (2004) reviewed the literature on gender differences in

leadership. The authors discuss perceptions of leaders in the form of stereotypes of women

leaders versus male counterparts, evaluations of women leaders using leader style as an

independent variable, organizational type as a determinant of leader perceptions, and leader

effectiveness. Generally in all studies, and especially in the autocratic leader style, women were

perceived less favorably than male leaders. Women leaders were rated as less effective than

male leaders when leaders and followers were both male. Further, the devaluation of women

leaders was more pronounced when the role performed by the leader was a male-dominated role

(Smith, Matkin, & Fritz, 2004).

According to Eagly and Johnson’s (1990) meta-analysis of 370 laboratory and

assessment center studies, women tend to lead with a participative style in comparison to male


leaders. Women leaders are also less likely to be autocratic in leader style (Eagly and Johnson,

1990). Future research in this area could focus on how to get perceptions of women leaders

heightened in the workplace, since women leaders are misperceived as having the tendency to be

more communicative and interpersonally oriented than male leaders. Potential leader style

differences do exist, and can be acknowledged while maintaining women leaders’ credibility

(Eagly and Johnson, 1990).

Other research related to social power within varying organizational cultures could

explore the impact on follower outcomes for a female leader’s use of power. Perhaps Kanter’s

(2016) token effect or unconscious discrimination and stereotyping (Lyubansky, 2012) would

occur, but studies could also reveal positive outcomes of female leaders’ power usage within

organizations.

Nationality

Nationality did not emerge as a significant confounder in the present analysis.

Among the 136 respondents to the self-identification question of nationality/country of origin

(103 values were missing), Fifty-Seven Participants (nearly 42%) were not born in the United

States, and the remaining Seventy-nine were born in the United States (58%). With such a high

number of respondents who were not born in the United States, exploring the topic of

nationality/country of origin is highly relevant to this discussion and future research.

There is research dedicated to immigrant populations surrounding the more global

construct of leadership, and some of these are highlighted here and were highlighted in greater

detail in the review of the literature. Especially relevant is the GLOBE study (Hoppe, 2007) and

the concept of national culture (Hofstede, 1984) as it pertains to leader style. As noted

previously, informational power or the command of information is a universally-desirable leader


trait across national cultures. Future research in this area could delve into the impact of national

culture on United States workers within corporate and governmental institutions, both as leaders

and as peers and followers in a Western, individualistic culture with high power distance.

Metayer (2004) discusses leadership in immigrant populations among Haitians in the

non-profit sector. Her discussion is based on her own empirical research with large Haitian

populations within U.S. companies. Her article points out major societal issues, the duplication

of old regimes and structural patterns which cause inertia, the disruption due to social conflict

within the Haitian organization, and stereotypes about Haitian leadership behaviors which

preclude the active engagement of Haitian organizational leaders with the workforce (Metayer,

2004).

Givens (2007) notes that European immigrant and minority populations are oppressed by

issues of racism and anti-immigrant political and religious/spiritual views. In 2000, the

European Union created a potential solution referred to as the European Union’s Racial Equality

Directive. The empirical research in the area of immigrant integration in European Union began

with studies whose primary focus was on the politics of immigrant integration, especially labor

force issues. Other studies have focused on racial and ethnic minority communities and their

ability to achieve political empowerment in a racist political infrastructure (Givens, 2007).

Chong and Wolf (2009) studied follower perceptions of leaders and noted that tests for

differences between followers from individualistic and collectivistic cultures were inconclusive.

This discussion is relevant, especially in this the Trump era in which immigration policy

reform is at an all-time peak in the United States, discrimination against immigrants and

racial/ethnic minorities is rampant, and the prevailing political infrastructure does not pose

opportunities for change in any direction in these areas. Psychologists have referred to


ramifications of Trump’s presidency in therapy (Burnett-Zeigler, 2016), dubbed the fear and

anxiety Americans are experiencing as “The Trump Effect,” (Veissiere, 2016) and studied the

“collective narcissism” induced by Trump’s presidency and his supporters’ blind trust in his

decision-making (de Zavala & Federico, 2017).

Future research in this area should be dedicated to examining differences in immigrant

subordinate emotional, cognitive and behavioral responses to leaders of varying nationalities,

races and ethnicities, as well as perceptions of leader effectiveness among these diverse groups

in the private sector.

Work and Managerial Experience

Keskes (2014) notes that work experiences are antecedents of organizational outcomes

such as organizational commitment. The question of whether management experience would

lead to similar relationships with compliance and trust remains to be answered by this study and

future research in this area, especially research using actual managers and subordinates within

organizations.

In this study, work and managerial experience did not emerge as significant confounders

in the analysis. Given the difficulty and monetary expense associated with management training

and development, however, the analysis was worth conducting and future research should examine

it in a similar vein.

Industry

The fashion industry is a renowned yet oft-detested industry within business and industry

contexts. Students would likely have responded differently to the exact same manipulation and

questions within food industries, gaming and toy industries, automobile industries, financial


services industries, etc. Demonstrative of the pejorative connotations associated with the fashion

industry are the questions of whether shopping patterns and behaviors are truly a function of

underlying psychological issues such as low self-esteem (Bannister & Hogg, 2004).

“Plus-size” vs. “Regular” Fashion Apparel

The focus of the present methodology was the introduction of a new plus-size clothing

line in a fashion company. Some empirical research has begun to explore psychological

relationships with fashion branding for plus-size and full-size retail clothing. For instance,

Acosta (2012) studied consumer bonding experiences with full-figured brands marketing to

Filipino women. Haswell (2010) conducted an empirical investigation on online shopping

motivations for plus-size retail fashion. This study could plausibly have returned different

results if the clothing line introduced were regular fashion apparel lines.

Pilot Study – Two Year College vs. Main Study – Four Year College

In the school year 2013-14, the campus on which the pilot study was conducted had a

majority Black/African-American (80.5%) student body, unlike the sample from which study

data was obtained. Whites made up 11.3% of the student population, Hispanics made up 2.8% of

the student population, and Asians made up 2.7% of the student population in 2013-14.

The two-year and four-year college environments have been shown to have significant

differences in academic growth (i.e., predicted by classroom vitality, commitment, student effort,

involvement and peer support) and cumulative GPA. Cumulative GPA was a better predictor of

performance in the four-year college environment, while student effort was a better predictor of

performance in the two-year college environment (Strauss & Volkwein, 2002).

Conclusion


None of the findings from the main study were statistically significant. There are other

issues that emerge from a review of the results and analyses which have profound impact on the

topic of social power within varying organizational cultures using the outcomes of follower

compliance and trust. I will discuss these next.

Implications and Directions for Future Research - Why was this study important?

My findings suggest that the implementation of the social power bases within

organizational systems must consider first the organizational cultural landscape in which the

implementation is being made. This held true for all of the power bases studied here, including

coercive power, reward power, expert power, and referent power, with some exceptions as the

power bases were combined with varying organizational cultural environments. It appears to be

true that Mosaic Projects’ (2014) findings regarding the alignment of power type with

organizational culture is a necessity for effective organizational outcomes, including compliance

and trust. Further investigation is needed to determine whether the potential confounding factors

in the present methodology led to these conclusions, or whether there are other plausible

explanations.

Despite its obvious limitations, this study lays the groundwork for much-needed

psychological research on responses to leaders of races other than white in the U.S. The

psychological implications of responses of employees to their superiors can have lasting impact

on the employees’ own behavior, progression within the company, and employee emotions

(Dasborough, 2006; Wong & Law, 2002).

Race/ethnicity and gender, usually visibly defining characteristics of the individual, have

been observed to lead to social categorization, which then leads to cognitive inferences about

internal characteristics which define members (i.e., and presumably the particular member being


observed) of a particular social category (Eagly & Chin, 2010). This is better known as

stereotyping, which can lead to misclassifications of members by assuming internal or

psychological qualities which in fact do not define that member of the category or social group.

Guldenberg and Konrath (n.d.) refer to the empirical research surrounding the

implementation of effective and socially-conscious leadership in the context of varying

organizational cultures “embryonic” at best (p.2). It is this call to action that necessitates this

and future such studies in the area of leadership in organizations, both domestically and

internationally.

But there are other, potentially more socially-conscious reasons which validate the

purpose of this and related studies. Subcultures in Western cultures, such as Blacks, Latinos,

Asians, Jews, American Indians, and women have suffered tremendous social setbacks which

have precluded their total engagement in the workforce. Historically, educational attainment

among these groups has been the primary determinant of success and high achievement, such as

advancement, promotion into executive-level positions, and other accolades in organizations

(Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990; Kao & Thompson, 2003)

However, the leadership within Corporations still reflects a past that was wrought with

social inequality, in which White males dominate the landscape. Since the inception of the

American Declaration of Independence, writing of the United States Constitution, and other

foundational documents that lay the groundwork for the infrastructure in which U.S. corporations

must operate, including laws, federal regulations, the Bill of Rights, and financial services

industry requirements in order to navigate the federal economy, organizational systems have

been limited to a homogeneity of thought, persons, and structures. These limitations can be

overcome with Diversification Management practices, heightened skills training and


development initiatives, broader recruitment efforts, restatement of organizational values and

mission, and a sensitized organizational climate.

Finally, I offer a caveat emptor for the study of social power in Western organizational

systems. The use of the term “power” conveys a pejorative, hegemonic perspective of authority

figures that is rampantly unfolding in the egos and psyches of corporate and other institutional

leaders. An example is given by Bedeian in his use of the term “Dean’s Disease” to describe the

impact of playing the role of Dean in educational institutions on Deans whose ability to remain

humble and refrain from becoming “puffed up with their own importance.” The leadership

model perhaps most fitting as a prototype for true leadership is one which allows the leader to

see the institutional landscape through the lens of its employee base, organizational cultural

climate, and the dynamic system in which it operates.

My findings suggest that the implementation of the social power bases within

organizational systems must consider first the organizational cultural landscape in which the

power type is being wielded.


Appendix A.

Figure 1. Compliance and Trust Predictions – An Interaction

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Coercive Power Reward Expert Referent

Compliance and Trust Predictions

Hierarchy Adhocracy


Appendix B.

SCENARIO

James Smith: Our company needs an intern to assist with the launch of the new plus-

sized product line, which has really been taking off over the web. Your campus recruiting efforts

will be to locate an intern. Your task is going to be identifying someone with the requisite skills

to perform and possibly transition into a full-time position upon graduation.

REWARD POWER/HIERARCHY MANIPULATION:

James Smith: I will give you a $1000 bonus for identifying a good intern.

ARashi is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern

what people do. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify








COERCIVE POWER/HIERARCHY MANIPULATION

James Smith: I will have no choice but to recommend your demotion if the intern

you recommend does not turn out to be a positive fit with the company.











EXPERT POWER/HIERARCHY MANIPULATION

James Smith: I would consult with Student Affairs. I find that they have excellent

strategies to market the internships to students because they know what students like and enjoy.

Your display for the recruiting event is critical. It needs to be vibrant and communicate exactly

what we are looking for in an intern. It should attract good students to apply for the internship

position.











REFERENT POWER/HIERARCHY MANIPULATION

James Smith: I have done recruiting events in prior years that went very well. We hand-

selected two interns among over 100 applicants. I can serve as your role-model in preparing for

this recruiting event.










REWARD POWER/ADHOCRACY MANIPULATION

James Smith: I will give you a $1000 bonus for identifying a good intern.

ARashi is a very dynamic entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks

out and take risks. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify

entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking. The management style in the organization is

characterized by individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness. The glue that holds

the organization together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis

on being on the cutting edge. The organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating


new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued. The

organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or newest products. It is a

product leader and innovator.

COERCIVE POWER/ADHOCRACY MANIPULATION

James Smith: I will have no choice but to recommend your demotion if the intern

you recommend does not turn out to be a positive fit with the company.

ARashi is a very dynamic entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and

take risks. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify








EXPERT POWER/ADHOCRACY MANIPULATION

James Smith: I would consult with Student Affairs. I find that they have excellent

strategies to market the internships to students because they know what students like and enjoy.

Your display for the recruiting event is critical. It needs to be vibrant and communicate exactly

what we are looking for in an intern. It should attract good students to apply for the internship

position.











REFERENT POWER/ADHOCRACY MANIPULATION

James Smith: I have done recruiting events in prior years that went very well. We hand-

selected two interns among over 100 applicants. I can serve as your role-model in preparing for

this recruiting event.











Appendix C.

PILOT STUDY QUESTIONS

Does the video you just viewed appear to match the company description provided below?

Yes No

Does the company description of ARashi, including the company name, describe a place for

which you would want to work?

Yes No

Manipulation Checks

Expert Power Manipulation

Does the person who served as the leader in the video seem like an expert?

Yes No

Did he demonstrate the ability to administer to another information, knowledge, or

expertise?

Yes No

Referent power Manipulation

Did the leader demonstrate the ability to administer to another feelings of personal


Yes No

Did the leader appear to be someone who could be looked up to as a role model?

Yes No

Reward Power Manipulation

Does the person who served as the leader in the video appear to be administering

rewards?


Yes No

Did he demonstrate the ability to administer to another things he or she desires or to

remove or decrease things he or she does not desire?

Yes No

Coercive power Manipulation

Did the leader demonstrate the ability to administer to another things he or she does not

desire or to remove or decrease things he or she does desire?

Yes No

Did the leader appear to be someone who could punish a subordinate?

Yes No

Hierarchical Culture Manipulation

Did ARashi Corporation appear to be a very controlled and structured place?

Yes No

Did the leader exemplify coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency.

Yes No

Did the management style in the organization appear to be characterized by security of

employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships?

Yes No

Adhocracy Culture Manipulation

Did ARashi Corporation appear to be a dynamic entrepreneurial place?

Yes No

Did the leader exemplify entrepreneurship, innovating, and/or risk taking?


Yes No

In the space below, please provide the reasons for your answers to the above questions.

Please provide your comments below about the relevance of each, some, or all of the questions in

the survey questionnaire.

Would you suggest any additional questions for the researcher to ask in this survey?


Appendix D.

ARashi Corporation – Adapted from The Coca Cola Company

Mission

Our mission magnifies the purpose for which this company was created. It serves as a

benchmark against which we can measure our successes.

1. To deliver highest quality contemporary fashions to our consumers.

2. To make our consumers’ lives better and more fulfilled.

3. To deliver the best value for the prices charged.

Vision

Our vision describes what achievements we need to make in order to continue growing as a

company.

-Employees: To make ARashi Corporation a positive working environment for our employees to

develop to their fullest potential.

-Designs: To create designs inspired by creativity and industry expertise.

- Charity: To give clothing, shoes, and other necessities to charitable organizations in order to

make a difference in the lives of others.

-Performance: To be effective at delivering maximum returns to shareholders and manufacturing

high quality fashions expeditiously.

Values

Our values guide our behaviors.

-Character: Be transparent

-Responsibility: Manage our markets responsibly


-Creativity: Be creative in developing fashions that manifest artistry and innovation.

-Diversity: Be inclusive in our employee and consumer base by creating fashions for diverse

markets.

-Quality: Use high-quality fabrics and materials and create fashions using quality manufacturing

processes.

-Brand image: Inspire creativity, passion, optimism, and fun.

Organizational Description

ARashi Corporation is a Fashion company founded in 2000 by CEO Rashida. The

company delivers clothing, shoes and accessories to diverse female and male consumers of all

ages. The company is headquartered in Chicago, IL with regional offices in New York City,

Atlanta, and Los Angeles. The employee base consists of 1300 employees of diverse

backgrounds in positions such as customer service, sales, retail management, corporate

management, finance, and Executive-level positions.

The company values its employees and believes in providing them with opportunities for

growth and advancement. The setup of the offices at the Headquarters in Chicago consists

mainly of cube workspaces. Some executive level management have offices with doors, but it is

customary that there is an open-door policy within the company and only during board meetings

and conferences are doors closed. ARashi values diversity – diversity of racial and ethnic

backgrounds, diversity of industrial experiences among employees, etc. The upper management

prides itself on representing diverse communities and insists that this diversity permeate the

organizational make-up. The staff of ARashi get along in a familial way, and communication

among employees is highly valued. The organization celebrates its successes by hosting an

annual awards ceremony in which particularly well-performing employees are recognized.


Employees get a chance to nominate deserving employees throughout the year for these

prestigious and highly regarded awards. Staff work at a moderate pace considering the fast-

paced industry in which they are situated. The company places a strong emphasis on work-life

balance, and even has an on-site daycare facility at each of its regional offices and headquarters.

The following interaction describes communications between James Smith, an Executive

Vice-President of Marketing, who is giving instructions to you, a campus recruiter at Baruch

College. You have been assigned the task of recruiting college students for an internship

position with ARashi, and Mr. Smith provides instructions for you during your campus visit to a

recruiting event.


Appendix E.

EXECUTIVE PROFILE

Executive Vice President for Marketing

James H. Smith is a high performance C-level executive with

Fortune 100 experience. He has demonstrated consistent success in

maximizing corporate performance. Mr. Smith drives growth,

generates revenues, captures market share, improves profits, and

enhances value in domestic and international markets. He finds

time to mentor, motivate, and lead high-performance business,

sales, marketing, product management, and development teams.

James H. Smith is effective and wholly accountable in high-profile

executive roles. He has overcome complex business challenges

and made high-stakes decisions within fast-paced, high-pressure

environments using experience-backed judgment, innovation,

strong work ethic, humor, and irreproachable integrity. Mr. Smith

is respected as a motivational, lead-by-example manager, change

agent, and proponent of empowerment and accountability.

James H. Smith joined ARashi Corporation as a General Manager

for Retail Operations in 2000. He was promoted to Vice-President

of Retail Operations in 2002 and has held his position as Executive

Vice-President since 2004. Prior to joining ARashi, Mr. Smith

worked as General Manager for The Gap, Inc., as a part of their

Management Development Program.

James H. Smith is a graduate of the University of Chicago School

of Business where he earned the Bachelor of Business

Administration degree. He and his wife Ashanti have two

daughters.

For More Information

Contact 1-888-768-8288

ARashi Corporation

Executive Offices

2901 W. 67th Street

Chicago, Illinois 60290

JAMES H. SMITH


James Smith

4326 South Oglesby Chicago IL 60291

Home: 312-334-3536 - Cell: 312-407-9214 [email protected]

Executive Profile

Executive Vice President of Marketing, innovative executive and marketing professional experienced in high-volume, multi-unit, retail and business operations. Desires a high-level position in a professional corporate environment.

Skill Highlights

Small business development Leadership/Communication skills

Product Development Product line expansion

Business Operations organization

New product delivery

Self-motivated

Employee relations

Market research and analysis

Customer-oriented

Core Accomplishments

Effective and wholly accountable in high-profile executive roles. He has overcome complex business challenges and made high-stakes decisions within fast-paced, high-pressure environments using experience-backed judgment, innovation, strong work ethic, humor, and irreproachable integrity. Mr. Smith is respected as a motivational, lead-by-example manager, change agent, and proponent of empowerment and accountability.

Since his tenure as Executive Vice President, the company has expanded to include 15 new retail stores and 235 new employees in the retail, manufacturing, and corporate sectors. The company's revenues grew by $15MM in the first five years of his becoming Executive Vice President.

Professional Experience

Executive Vice President of Marketing September 2004 ARashi Corporation - Chicago, IL Generated new business through the opening of 5 new retail stores in previously untapped urban market

areas. Created new revenue streams through the introduction of a men's suit line and a plus-size fashion

line for women. Accountable for survey research engine which measures customer satisfaction with online

shopping purchases including overall customer satisfaction.

VP of Retail Operations August 2002 to September 2004

mailto:[email protected]


ARashi Corporation - Chicago, IL

Developed and directed strategy for launch of new product that became #1 in the market place 11 months after launch. Increased profits by 60% in one year through restructure of business line.

General Manager for Retail Operations May 2000 to August 2002

ARashi Corporation - Chicago, IL

Created new revenue streams through the consolidation of multiple fashion lines and the introduction of a

new web-based shopping hub. Captured 55%+ market share with new product quickly brought to market. Strengthened

company's business by leading implementation of Put Fashion 2 Work, a non-profit dedicated to improving women's

lives through career preparation and image consulting.

Management Development - General Manager

January 1998 to April 2000

The Gap, Inc. - San Francisco, CA

Accountable for Retail Operations including overall customer satisfaction. Spearheaded The Denim Initiative, resulting in a 45% increase in revenue. Accountable for [business area] including overall customer satisfaction. Captured 55%+ market share with new product quickly brought to market. Managed team of 32 professionals.

Education

BBA: Business Management, 1997

University of Chicago - Chicago, IL, USA

3.3 GPA


Appendix F.

Compliance with Supervisor’s Wishes Scale (Rahim, 1988)

Organizational members generally do the things their superior want them to do. Please indicate

the extent to which you do or prefer doing the things your superior wants by selecting a number

on the scale provided for each statement.

Scale: 5=Strongly Agree, 4=Agree, 3=Undecided, 2=Disagree, 1=Strongly Disagree

1. I follow my superior’s orders………………………………………. 5 4 3 2 1

2. I like to do what my superior suggests……………………………...5 4 3 2 1

3. I prefer not to comply with my superior’s instructions …………….5 4 3 2 1

4. I comply with my superior………………………………………….5 4 3 2 1

5. I do what my superior suggests……………………………………..5 4 3 2 1

6. I don’t like to follow my superior’s orders…………………………5 4 3 2 1

7. I prefer not to comply with the directives of my superior………….5 4 3 2 1

8. I follow the work-procedures set up by my superior……………….5 4 3 2 1

9. I prefer to follow the work-procedures set up by my superior……..5 4 3 2 1

10. I comply with the instructions of my superior……………………..5 4 3 2 1


Appendix G.

Trust Questionnaire (McCallister, 1995)

Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement by selecting a number

from 1 to 5, with 1 representing Strongly Disagree to 5 representing Strongly Agree or 1

representing very to 5 representing not at all.

1. I am willing to execute this direction from the

supervisor………………………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

2. How much do you trust the leader? …….. ….. ……………………………1 2 3 4 5

3. How supportive of the leader’s instructions are you willing to be?…………1 2 3 4 5

4. How supportive is the leader?……………..……… ………………………. 1 2 3 4 5

5. How credible is the leader?…………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5


References

Acosta, J. (2012). Women of generous proportions: An empirical study of full-figured brands

and the consumer bonding experience. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 16(2),

97-106.

Adler, P., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 61-89.

Adubato, S. (2008). Real power and leadership go well beyond titles. NJBIZ, September 1, 13.

Aguinis, H., Nesler, M.S., Quigley, B.M., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1994). Perceptions of power: A

cognitive perspective. Social Behavior and Personality, 22(4), 377-384.

Aguinis, M.S., Nesler, B.M., Quigley, S., Lee, S.J., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1996). Power bases of

faculty supervisors and educational outcomes for graduate students. Journal of Higher

Education, 67(3), 267-297.

Akinola, A. (1987). Power and leadership in Nigeria by Chuba Okadigbo. The Journal of

Modern African Studies, 25(4), 708-709.

Alanazi, F.M., & Rodrigues, A. (2003). Power bases and attribution in three cultures. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 143(3), 375-395.

Appu, P.S. (2001). Bureaucracy and power. In S.K. Chakraborty and P. Bhattacharya (Eds.),

Leadership and Power: Ethical Explorations (pp.284-297). New Delhi: Oxford.

Armstead, T. (2004). An exploration of coercive power and trust in community involvement.

Graduate Thesis, Vanderbilt University, Master of Science in Community Research and

Action.

Armstrong, E., & Bernstein, M. (2008). Culture, power and institutions: A multi-institutional


politics approach to social movements. Sociological Theory, 26(1), 74-99.

Asencio, H., & Mujkic, E. (2016). Leadership behaviors and trust in leaders: Evidence from the

U.S. Federal Government. Public Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 156-179.

Astley, W.G., & Sachdeva, P.S. (1984). Structural sources of intraorganizational power: A

theoretical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 104-113.

Atwater. L.E., & Yammarino, F.J. (1996). Bases of power in relation to leader behavior: A field

investigation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(1), 3-22.

Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist,

April, 157-170.

Bachman, J.G. (1968). Faculty satisfaction and the Dean’s influence: An organizational study of

twelve liberal arts colleges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(1), 55-61.

Bachman, J.G., Bowers, D.G., & Marcus, P.M. (1968). Bases of supervisory power: A

comparative study in five organizational settings. In A.S. Tannenbaum (Ed.), Control in

organizations (pp. 229-280). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bachman, J.G., Smith, C.G., & Slesinger, J.A. (1966). Control, performance, and satisfaction:

An analysis of structural and individual effects. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 4(2), 127-136.

Bahniuk, M., Hill, S., & Darus, H. (1996). The relationship of power-gaining communication

strategies to career success. Western Journal of Communication, 60(4), 358-378.

Bailey, C.D. (n.d.) Culture in business: Using a symbolic approach to connect organizational and

corporate cultures. Retrieved from http://www.baileyworkplay.com/wp-

content/uploads/2008/09/culture_in_business-using_a_symbolic_approach.pdf.

Bailey, D., & Neilsen, E.H. (1992). Creating a bureau-adhocracy: Integrating standardized and

http://www.baileyworkplay.com/wp-

http://www.baileyworkplay.com/wp-


innovative services in a professional work group. Human Relations, 45, 687-710.

Bal, V., Campbell, M., Steed, J., & Meddings, K. (2008). The role of power in effective

leadership. A CCL Research White Paper, Center for Creative Leadership, 1-20.

Baldwin, A., Kiviniemi, M., & Snyder, M. (2009). A subtle source of power: The effect of

having an expectation on anticipated interpersonal power. Journal of Social Psychology,

149(1), 82-104.

Banister, E., & Hogg, M. (2004). Negative symbolic consumptions and consumers’ drive for

self-esteem: The case of the fashion industry. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7),

850-868.

Barnes, B., Humphreys, J., Oyler, J., Haden, S., & Novicevic, M. (2013). Transcending the

power of hierarchy to facilitate shared leadership. Leadership and Organization

Development Journal, 34(8), 741-762.

Bate, P. (2002). Changing the culture of a hospital: From hierarchy to networked community.

Public Administration, 78(3), 485-512.

Bates, K. (1997). The role of coercive forces in organization design adoption. Academy of

Management Review, 22(4), 849-851.

Baumrind, D. (2012). Differentiating between confrontive and coercive kinds of parental power-

assertive disciplinary practices. Human Development, 55, 35-51.

Bedeian, A. (2002). The Dean’s disease: How the darker side of power manifests itself in the

Dean’s office. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2), 164-173.

Bellot, J. (2011). Defining and assessing organizational culture. School of Nursing Faculty

Papers and Presentations. Paper 34. http://jdc.jefferson.edu/nursfp/34.

Berdahl, J. (2008). Introduction: Social power in action. Social Justice Research, 21, 255-262.


Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N., & Lee, M. (2016). Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard

Business Review, July-August.

Beslin, R., & Reddin, C. (2004). How leaders can communicate to build trust. The

Organization, November-December.

Beyene, T. (2011). Diagnosing Ercoe’s organizational culture and indicating members’ preferred

culture. Journal of Asian Business Strategy, 1(5), 73-77.

Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (1997). On costly friction between organizational cultures and structure.

In M.A. Rahim, R.T. Golembiewski, & L.E. Pate (Eds.), Current topics in management

(pp. 123-152), London: JAI Press.

Blass, T., & Schmitt, C. (2001). The nature of perceived authority in the Milgram paradigm:

Two replications. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social,

20(2), 115-121.

Boehm, C., & Flack, J.C. (2010). The emergence of simple and complex power structures

through social niche construction. In A. Guinote & T.K. Vescio (Eds.), The social

psychology of power (pp. 46-86), New York: Guilford Press.

Boldt, R., Witzel, M., Russell, C., & Jones, V. (2007). Replacing coercive power with

relationship power. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 15(4), 243-248.

Brass, D.J., & Burkhardt, M.E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of

structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441-470.

Brauer, M. & Bourhis, R. (2006). Social power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36,

601-616.

Braynion, P. (2004). Power and leadership. Journal of Health Organization and Management,

18(6), 447-463.


Brion, S., & Anderson, C. (2013). The loss of power: How illusions of alliance contribute to

powerholders’ downfall. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121,

129-139.

Brown, A. (1992). Organizational culture: The key to effective leadership and organizational

development. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 13(2), 3-6.

Bruins, J., & Wilke, H. (1993). Upward power tendencies in a hierarchy: Power distance theory

versus bureaucratic rule. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 239-254.

Buble, M. (2012). Interdependence of organizational culture and leadership styles in large firms.

Management, 17(2), 85-97.

Buchmann, W.F. (1997). Adherence: A matter of self-efficacy and power. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 26, 132-137.

Burke, R.J., & Wilcox, D.S. (1971). Bases of supervisory power and subordinate job

satisfactions. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 3, 183-193.

Burnett-Zeigler, I. (2016). How Donald Trump affects therapy patients. Time.com, November

28.

Busch, P. (1980). The sales manager’s bases of social power and influence upon the sales force.

Journal of Marketing, 44(3), 91-101.

Busch, P., & Wilson, D. (1976). An experimental analysis of a salesman’s expert and referent

bases of social power in the buyer-seller dyad. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(1), 3-

11.

Butler, C. (2007). Prospect theory and coercive bargaining. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(2),

227-250.

Carlsmith, J.M., Collins, B.E., & Helmreich, R.L. (1966). The effect of pressure for compliance


on attitude change produced by face-to-face role playing and anonymous essay writing.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(1), 1-13.

Carson, P.P., Carson, K.D., & Pence, P.L. (2002). Supervisory power and its influence on staff

members and their customers. Hospital Topics, 80(3), 11-15.

Carson, P.P., Carson, K.D., & Roe, C.W. (1993). Social power bases: A meta-analytic

examination of interrelationships and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

23(14), 1150-1169.

Carson, P.P., Carson, K.D., Knight, E.L., & Roe, C.W. (1995). Power in organizations: A look

through the TQM lens. Quality Progress, 28(11), 73-75.

Celep, C., & Yilmazturk, O. (2012). The relationships among organizational trust,

multidimensional organizational commitment and perceived organizational support in

educational organizations. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5763-5776.

Chaban, N., Elgstrom, O., Kelly, S., & Yi, L. (2013). Images of the EU beyond its borders:

Issue-specific and regional perceptions of European Union power and leadership.

Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(3), 433-451.

Chin, J.L. (2013). Diversity Leadership: Influence of Ethnicity, Gender and Minority Status.

Open Journal of Leadership, 2(1), 1-10.

Chinomona, R. (2013). Dealer’s legitimate power and relationship quality in Gaunxi distribution

channel: A social rule system theory perspective. International Journal of Marketing

Studies, 5(1), 42-58.

Choi, Y., Seo, M., Scott, D., & Martin, J. (2010). Validation of the Organizational Culture

Assessment Instrument: An application of the Korean version. Journal of Sport

Management, 24, 169-189.


Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual

Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.

Clegg, S. (1989). Frameworks of power. Sydney: Sage Publications.

Cobb, A.T. (1980). Informal influence in the formal organization: Perceived sources of power

among work unit peers. Academy of Management Journal, 23(1), 155-161.

Cobb, A.T. (1984). An episodic model of power: Toward an integration of theory and research.

Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 482-493.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.

Cope, R.G. (1972). Bases of power, administrative preferences and job satisfaction: A situational

approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2(4), 457-465.

Costigan, R., Insinga, R., Berman, J., Ilter, S., Kranas, G., & Kureshov, V. (2006). The effect of

employee trust of the supervisor on enterprising behavior: A cross-cultural comparison.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(2), 273-291.

Dahl, R.A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215.

Davidson, C. (2012). Leadership: Power tactics. Employee Benefit Advisor, March, 50-51.

De Lima Rua, O., & Arauja, J. (2016). Linking transformational leadership and organizational

trust: has organizational commitment a mediating effect on it? Cuademos de Gestion,

16(1), 43-62.

Dell, D. (1978). Counselor power base, influence attempt, and behavior change in counseling.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20(5), 399-405.

Depret, E., & Fiske, S. (1999). Perceiving the powerful: Intriguing individuals versus threatening

groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 461-480.

Deshpande’, R., & Farley, J. (2004). Organizational culture, innovativeness, and market


orientation in Hong Kong five years after Handover: What has changed? Journal of

Global Marketing, 17(4), 53-73.

Devol, R., Shen, I., Bedroussian, A., & Zhang, N. The Milken Institute (2013). A matter of

degrees: The effects of educational attainment on regional economic prosperity. Santa

Monica: The Milken Institute.

Dijk, E., & Vermunt, R. (2000). Strategy and fairness in social decision making: Sometimes it

pays to be powerless. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1-25.

Dodd-McCue, D. & Tartaglia, A. (2010). Self-report response bias: Learning how to live with

its diagnosis in chaplaincy research. Chaplaincy Today, 26(1), 2-8.

Drea, J.T., Bruner, G.C., & Hensel, P.J. (1993). Comparing alternative measures of the French

and Raven power bases. Journal of Personal Selling and Management, 13(4), 73-80.

Drouvelis, M., Montero, M., & Sefton, M. (2010). Gaining power through enlargement: Strategic

foundations and experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 69, 274-292.

Eagly, A., & Chin, J. (2010). Are memberships in race, ethnicity, and gender categories merely

surface characteristics? December, 934-935.

Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis. CHIP

Documents, 11, http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/chip_docs/11.

Edelman, R. (2017). Trust Barometer: Annual Global Study. Retrieved from

https://www.edelman.com/executive-summary/.

Elangovan, A.R., & Xie, J.L. (2000). Effects of perceived power of supervisor on subordinate

work attitudes. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21(6), 319-328.

Erez, M., Rim, Y.A., & Keider, I. (1986). The two sides of the tactics of influence: Agent versus

target. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 25-39.


Erkutlu, H., Chafra, J., & Bumin, B. (2011). Organizational culture’s role in the relationship

between power bases and job stress. H.U. Journal of Education, 40, 198-209.

Esmiol, E., Knudson-Martin, C., & Delgado, S. (2012). Developing a contextual consciousness:

Learning to address gender, societal power, and culture in clinical practice. Journal of

Marital and Family Therapy, 38(4), 573-588.

Evan, W.M., & Zelditch, Jr., M. (1961). A laboratory experiment on bureaucratic authority.

American Sociological Review, 26, 883-893.

Federal News Radio Survey (2014). “Trust Redefined: Reconnecting Government and Its

Employees”; n=~1900. Retried from http://www.federalnewsradio.com

Feld, A. (1987). Self-perceptions of power: Do social work and business students differ? Social

Work, 32(3), 225-230.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J.M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal

of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.

Fiske, S.T., & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. In A.W. Kruglanski & E.T. Higgins (Eds.),

Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 678-692). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Flynn, F., Gruenfeld, D., Molm, L., & Polzer, J. (2011). Social psychological perspectives on

power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 495-500.

Fontaine, G. & Beerman, J. (1977). Affective consequences of social power: Powerholder and

target expectancies associated with different types of power. Psychological Reports, 40,

771-774.

Frankel, E., & Kassinove, H. (1974). Effects of required effort, perceived expertise, and sex on

teacher compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 93, 187-192.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/


Franklin, J.L. (1975). Power and organizational commitment: An empirical assessment. Human

Relations, 28(8), 737-753.

French, J.R. & Raven, B. (1959). Group support, legitimate power and social influence. Journal

of Personality, 26(3), 400-409.

French, J.R., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander

(Eds.), Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, 2nd Ed. (pp. 607-623). New York, NY:

Harper and Row.

Frost, D.E., & Stahelski, A.J. (1988). The systematic measurement of French and Raven’s bases

of social power in workgroups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(5), 375-389.

Gabel, S. (2012) Power, leadership and transformation: The doctor’s potential for influence.

Medical Education, 46, 1152-1160.

Gallagher, S., Brown, C., & Brown, L. (2008). A strong market culture drives organizational

performance and success. Employment Relations Today, 35(1), 25-31.

Gandz, J. (2000). Global leadership and personal power. Ivey Business Journal, 64(5), 10-12.

Gardner, J. (1988). Leadership and power. NASSP Bulletin, 72, 47.

Gaski, J. (1986). Interrelations among a channel entity’s power sources: Impact of the exercise of

reward and coercion on expert, referent and legitimate power sources. Journal of

Marketing Research, 23(1), 62-77.

Giessner, S., & Schubert, T. (2007). High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judgments

of leaders’ power are interrelated. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 104, 30-44.

Gioia, D.A., & Sims, Jr., H.P. (1983). Perceptions of managerial power as a consequence of

managerial behavior and reputation. Journal of Management, 9, 7-26.


Giosa, V.D. (2009). The cultural management of leadership. Anales de Estudios Economicos y

Empresariales, 19, 167-191.

Giritli, H., Oney-Yazici, E., Topcu-Oraz, G., & Acar, E. (2013). The interplay between

leadership and organizational culture in the Turkish construction sector. International

Journal of Project Management, 31, 228-238.

Givens, T. (2007). Immigrant integration in Europe: Empirical research. Annual Review of

Political Science, 10, 67-83.

Gokce, B., Guney, S., & Katrinli, A. (2014). Does doctors’ perception of hospital leadership

style and organizational culture influence their organizational commitment? Social

Behavior and Personality, 42(9), 1549-1562.

Goldhamer, H., & Shils, E.A. (1939). Types of power and status. American Journal of

Sociology, 45(2), 171-178.

Golec de Zavala, A., & Federico, C. (2017). ‘Collective narcissisim’ explains at least some of

President Trump’s support, Washington Post, March 17.

Goncalves, M. (2013). Leadership styles: The power to influence others. International Journal of

Business and Social Science, 4(4), 1-3.

Goodstadt, B., & Kipnis, D. (1970). Situational influences on the use of power. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 54(3), 201-207.

Goodwin, S.A. (2003). Power and prejudice: A social-cognitive perspective on power and

leadership. In Knippenberg, D.V. & Hogg, M.A. (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity

processes in groups and organizations (pp. 138-152). London: Sage.

Greene, C. N., & Podsakoff, P.M. (1981). Effects of withdrawal of a performance-contingent

reward on supervisory influence and power. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3),


527-542.

Green, R. (1999). Leadership as a function of power. Proposal Management, Fall, 54-56.

Greenhaus, J., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. (1990). Effects of race on organizational

experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of

Management Journal, 33(1), 64-86.

Gregory, K.L. (1983). Native-view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflicts in

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 359-376.

Guinote, A., Willis, G., & Martellotta, C. (2010). Social power increases implicit prejudice.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 299-307.

Guldenberg, S., & Konrath, H. (n.d.). Intelligent leadership in knowledge-based organizations:

An empirical study. Retrieved from

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc5/papers/a-

1_gueldenberg.pdf.

Gupta, B. (2011). A comparative study of organizational strategy and culture across industry.

Benchmarking: An International Journal, 18(4), 510-528.

Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis,

10th Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hallett, T. (2003). Symbolic power and organizational culture. Sociological Theory, 21(2), 128-

149.

Handgraaf, M., Dijk, E., Vermunt, R., Wilke, H., & De Dreu, C. (2008). Less power or

powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in

social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1136-1149.

Hanks, G. (n.d.). What is differentiation and integration in organizational development?

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc5/papers/a-1_gueldenberg.pdf

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc5/papers/a-1_gueldenberg.pdf


Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differentiation-integration-organization-

development-70838.html.

Harris, S.G. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based

perspective. Organization Science, 5(3), 309-321.

Harrison, L. (2011) Transformational leadership, integrity and power. New Directions for

Student Services, 135, 45-52.

Harsanyi, J.C. (1962). Measurement of social power, opportunity costs, and the theory of two-

person bargaining games. Behavioral Science, 7(1), 67-80.

Hartl, B., Hofmann, E., Gangl, K., Hartner-Tiefenthaler, M., & Kirchler, E. (2015). Does the sole

description of a tax authority affect tax evasion? The impact of described coercive and

legitimate power. Plos One, April 29, 2015, 1-19.

Haswell, N. (2010). Analysis and conceptualization of plus-size fashion online shopping

motivations. University of Manchester Masters Thesis, School Materials, 1-307.

Hausman, A., & Johnston, W. (2010). The impact of coercive and non-coercive forms of

influence on trust, organizational commitment, and compliance in supply chains.

Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 519-526.

Heider F.(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Henderson, A.H. (1981). Social power: Social psychological models and theories. New York,

NY: Praeger.

Herbst, S. (2006). Legitimate power in a mediated age: Revisiting Carl J. Friedrich’s “Authority,

Reason and Discretion”. Political Communication, 23, 285-290.

Heritage, B., Pollock, C., & Roberts, L. (2014). Validation of the Organizational Culture

Assessment Instrument. PLoS One, 9(3), 1-10.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differentiation-integration-organization-

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differentiation-integration-organization-


Hinkin, T., & Schriesheim, C. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure

the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology,

74(4), 561-567.

Hinkin, T.R., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1990). Relationships between subordinate perceptions of

supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human Relations,

43, 221-237.

Hofmann, E., Gangl, K., Kirchler, E., & Stark, J. (2014). Enhancing tax compliance through

coercive and legitimate power of tax authorities by concurrently diminishing or

facilitating trust in tax authorities. Law and Policy, 36(3), 290-313.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M.H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation

using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417-433.

Hollander, E., & Offermann, L. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in

transition. American Psychologist, 45(2), 179-189.

Hollander, E.P., & Julian, J.W. (1970). Studies in leader legitimacy, influence and innovation. In

L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 33-69). New York,

NY: Academic Press.

Hollander, E.P. (2009). Inclusive Leadership: The Essential Leader-Follower Relationship.

New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace &

World.

Hoppe, M. (2007). Culture and leader effectiveness: The GLOBE study.

Retrieved from www.inspireimagineinnovate.com

Houtsonen, J., & Antikainen, A. (2008). Symbolic power in cultural contexts: Uncovering social


reality. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Humphreys, K., Macus, S., Stewart, E., & Oliva, E. (2004) Expanding self-help group

participation in culturally diverse urban areas: Media approaches to leveraging referent

power. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(4), 413-424.

Hurwitz, J.I., Zander, A.F., & Hymovitch, B. (1960). Some effects of power on the relations

among group members. In D. Cartwright, & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics:

Research and theory, 2nd Ed. (pp. 800-809), Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.

Inesi, M. (2010). Power and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 112, 58-69.

Ireland, R., & Webb, J. (2007). A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic

supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 482-497.

Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. (2005). Power, voice and hierarchy: Exploring the antecedents of

speaking up in groups. Group Dynamics, 9(2), 93-103.

Ivancevich, J.M. (1970). An analysis of control, bases of control, and satisfaction in an

organizational setting. Academy of Management Journal, 13, 427-436.

Jaeger, M., & Adair, D. (2013). Organizational culture of construction project managers in the

GCC countries. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 20(5), 461-

473.

Jogulu, U. & Wood, G. (2007). Power struggle. Engineering Management, June/July, 36-37.

Jones, E. (2009). Elusive power, essential leadership. Survival, 51(3), 243-252.

Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Mannion, R. (2009).

Instruments for exploring organizational culture: A review of the literature. Public

Administration Review, 69(6), 1087-1096.


Justis, R.T., Kedia, B.L., & Stephens, D.B. (1978). The effect of position power and perceived

task competence on trainer effectiveness: A partial utilization of Fiedler’s contingency

model of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 31, 83-93.

Kalinich, D., & Stojkovic, S. (1985). Contraband: The basis for legitimate power in a prison

social system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(4), 435-451.

Kanter, R. (1981). Power, leadership and participatory management. Theory into Practice, 20(4),

219-224.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions in group life: Skewed sex ratios and

responses to numerical minority women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-990

Kao, G., & Thompson, J. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and

attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417-442.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations, 2nd Ed. New York, NY:

John Wiley & Sons.

Kellerman, B. (2010). Leadership: Essential selections on power, authority, and influence. New

York, NY:McGraw-Hill.

Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of

social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 40, 151-192.

Keskes, I. (2014). Relationship between leadership styles and dimensions of employee

organizational commitment: A critical review and discussion of future directions.

Intangible Capital, 10(1), 26-51.

Kessler, V. (2010). Leadership and power. Koers, 75(3), 527-550.

Khurosani, A. (2013). Adhocracy culture support and leader’s working creativity. International


Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 3(4), 411-415.

Kim, K.I., Park, H.J., & Suzuki, N. (1990). Reward allocations in the United States, Japan, and

Korea: A comparison of individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Academy of

Management Journal, 33, 188-198.

Kipnis, D. (n.d.) The effects of leadership style and leadership power upon the inducement of an

attitude change. U.S. Naval Personnel Research Field Activity, Washington, D.C., 173-180.

Kipnis, D., Castell, P.J., Gergen, M., & Mauch, D. (1976). Metamorphic effects of power.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 127-135.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics:

Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440-452.

Koslowky, M., & Stashevsky, S. (2005). Organizational values and social power. International

Journal of Manpower, 26(1), 23-34.

Kraimer, M., Seibert, S., Wayne, S., Liden, R., & Bravo J. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of

organizational support for development: the critical role of career opportunities. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 485-500.

Kudisch, J., Poteet, M., Dobbins, G., Rush, M., & Russell, J. (1995). Expert power, referent

power, and charisma: Toward the resolution of a theoretical debate. Journal of Business

and Psychology, 10(2), 177-195.

Lammers, J., Stoker, J.I., & Stapel, D.A. (2009). Differentiating social and personal power:

Opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies.

Psychological Science, 20(12), 1543-1549.

Laswell, H.D. (1948). Power and personality. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Leadership of Culture, Ethics and Diversity (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Seibert%20SE%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21114356

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Bravo%20J%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21114356

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21114356

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21114356


http://www2.uhv.edu/chapao/4305/outlines/Chp%2010%20Notes.htm

Leadership Styles and Bases of Power (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Int-Loc/Leadership-Styles-and-Bases-

of-Power.html.

Lee, B. (1988). Sources of legitimate leadership power. Executive Excellence, 5(8) 12-14.

Lee, K.L. (2008). An empirical investigation of the impact of supervisory power bases on

subordinates. Asian Social Science, 4(7), 54-63.

Lehman, P. (1989). Social power game by R. Leik, G. Gifford, R. Anderson. Teaching

Sociology, 17(2), 274-275.

Levi, D. (2014). Group dynamics for teams, 4th Ed. San Luis: Sage.

Levinson, H. (1980). Power, leadership and the management of stress. Professional Psychology,

11(3), 497-508.

Lieberman, S. (1956). The effects of changes in roles on the attitudes of role occupants. Human

Relations, 9, 385-402.

Lipman, T. (2000). Power and influence in clinical effectiveness and evidence-based medicine.

Family Practice, 17(6), 557-563.

Liu, J., Wang, H., Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2012). Psychological ownership: How having control

matters. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 869-895.

Lord, R. (1977). Functional leadership behavior: Measurement and relation to social power and

leadership perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 114-133.

Louis, M.R. (1983). Organizations as culture-bearing milieu. In L.R. Pondy, P.J. Frost, G.

Morgan, & T.C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational symbolism (pp. 39-54). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press, Inc.

http://www2.uhv.edu/chapao/4305/outlines/Chp%2010%20Notes.htm




Lumby, J. (2012). Leading organizational culture: Issues of power and equity. Educational

Management Administration and Leadership, 40(5), 576-591.

Lyubansky, M. (2012). Studies of unconscious bias: Racism not always by racists. Psychology

Today, April 26, 2012.

Madonna, S., Wesley, A.L., Bailey, G.K., & Anderson, H.N. (1988). Machiavellianism as a

strategy of power attainment in college freshmen, upperclassmen, and graduate students

in psychology. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 953-954.

Manz, C.C., & Gioia, D.A. (1983). The interrelationship of power and control. Human Relations,

36(5), 459-476.

Marinova, S. (2005). An organizational culture perspective on role emergence and role

enactment. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park,

Maryland.

Martin, T.N., & Hunt, J.G. (1980). Social influence and intent to leave: A path-analytic process

model. Personnel Psychology, 33, 505-528.

Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis.

Organizational Dynamics, 12(2), 52-64.

Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,

and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-

194.

McCallister, D.J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal

cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.

McFarlain, T. (2014). Why creating a safety culture is better than relying on compliance.

Retrieved from http://www.safeopedia.com/2/1217/safety/why-creating-a-safety-culture-

http://www.safeopedia.com/2/1217/safety/why-creating-a-safety-culture-


is-better-than-relying-on-compliance

McQuarrie, F., Kondra, A., Lamertz, K. (2013). Government, coercive power and the perceived

legitimacy of Canadian post-secondary institutions. Canadian Journal of Higher

Education, 43(2), 149-165.

Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 349-364.

Mendez-Morse, S. (2004). Constructing mentors: Latina educational leaders’ role models and

mentors. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 561-590.

Meng, Y., He, J., & Luo, C. (2014). Science research group leader’s power and members’

compliance and satisfaction with supervision. Research Management Review, 20(1), 1-

15.

Menguc, B., Whitwell, G., & Uray, N. (2000). Effects of environmental uncertainty on

organizational search activity in high-tech markets. ANZMAC 2000: Visionary

Marketing for the 21st Century: Facing the Challenge, 816-822.

Metayer, N. (2004). Considerations on leadership in an immigrant population: Lessons from the

Haitian community. Nonprofit Quarterly, Retrieved from

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2004/12/21.

Michener, H.A., & Burt, M.R. (1975). Components of “authority” as determinants of

compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 606-614.

Miller, M. (1982). Friendship, power, and the language of compliance-gaining. Journal of

Language and Social Psychology, 1(2), 111-121.

Min, D., & Kim, J. (2013). Is power powerful? Power, confidence, and goal pursuit.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30, 265-275.


Mitchell, D.E., & Spady, W.G. (1983). Authority, power and the legitimation of social control.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(1), 5-33.

Molinero, J. (2000). The origins of the State from reciprocity to coercive power. Constitutional

Political Economy, 11(3), 231-253.

Morris, J.B. (1979). Leadership within the power structure. Catalyst for Change, 8(2), 8-10.

Mosaic Projects (2014). White paper: Understanding power and authority.

http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers.html

Mukherjee, A., Pinto, M., & Malhotra, N. (2009). Power perceptions and modes of complaining

in higher education. The Service Industries Journal, 29(11), 1615-1633.

Mulder, M., deJong, R.D., Koppelaar, L., & Verhage, J. (1986). Power, situation and leaders’

effectiveness: An organizational field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 566-

570.

Munduate, L., & Dorado, M.A. (1998). Supervisor power bases, co-operative behavior, and

organizational commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

7(2), 163-177.

Murayama, K., & Kitagami, S. (2014). Consolidation power of extrinsic rewards: Reward cues

enhance long-term memory for irrelevant past events. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 143(1), 15-20.

Naranjo-Valencia, Jimenez-Jimenez, & Sanz-Valle (2011). Innovation or imitation? The role of

organizational culture. Management Decision, 49(1), 55-72.

Nesler, M.S., Aguinis, H., Quigley, B.M., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1993). The effect of credibility on

perceived power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(17), 1407-1425.

Nesler, M.S., Aguinis, H., Quigley, B.M., Lee, S., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1999). The development


and validation of a scale measuring global social power based on French and Raven’s

power taxonomy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 750-771.

Neustadt, R.E. (1960). Presidential power: the politics of leadership. New York, NY: John

Wiley and Sons.

Niederle, M., & Roth, A.E. (2009). Market culture: How rules governing exploding offers affect

market performance. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 1(2), 199-219.

Nolan, P. (2012). Understanding the employment relationship: markets, hierarchies, and power.

Industrial Relations Journal, 43(4), 359-369.

Nye, Jr., J. (2013). On leadership and American power: A discussion about the role of leadership

in U.S. Foreign Policy. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Summer/Fall, 109-

113.

Oliveira, P., Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2012). Power and legitimizing ideologies in

hierarchy-enhancing versus hierarchy-attenuating environments. Political Psychology,

33(6), 867-885.

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (2010). Retrieved May 19, 2014 from www.ocai-

online.com.

Ostaszewski, Babel, & Swebodzinski (2013). Physical and cognitive effort discounting of

hypothetical monetary rewards. Japanese Psychological Research, 55(4), 329-337.

Paap, W.R. (1981). The concept of power: Treatment in fifty introductory sociology textbooks.

Teaching Sociology, 9(1), 57-68.

Palich, L.E., & Hom, P.W. (1992). The impact of leader power and behavior on leadership

perceptions: A Lisrel test of an expanded categorization theory of leadership model.

Group and Organization Management, 17(3), 279-296.

http://www.ocai-/


Patchen, M. (1974). The locus and basis of influence on organizational decisions. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 11(2), 195-221.

Pearce, J.A., & Robinson, Jr., R.B. (1987). A measure of CEO social power in strategic decision-

making. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 297-304.

Pelham, B., & Blanton, H. (2012). Conducting research in psychology: Measuring the weight of

smoke. Wadsworth Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA.

Pennington, P., Townsend, C., & Cummins, R. (2003). The relationship of leadership practices

to culture. Journal of Leadership Education, 2(1), 27-44.

Peters, L.H., Hartke, D.D., & Pohlmann, J.T. (1985). Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership:

An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological

Bulletin, 97(2), 274-285.

Petress, K. (n.d.). Power: Definitions, Typology, Description, Examples, and Implications.

Retrieved from http://uthscsa.edu/gme/documents/powerdefinitionstypologyexamples.pdf.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1972). Information control as a power resource. Sociology, 6, 187-204.

Pfeffer, J. (2013). You’re still the same: Why theories of power hold over time and across

contexts. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 269-280.

Pitesa, M., & Thau, S. (2013). Compliant sinners, obstinate saints: How power and self-focus

determine the effectiveness of social influences in ethical decision making. Academy of

Management Journal, 56(3), 635-658.

Podsakoff, P.M., & Schrieshiem, C.A. (1984). Measurement and analytic shortcomings in field

studies of French and Raven’s bases of social power. Academy of Management

Proceedings, August 1, 227-231.

Podsakoff, P.M., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1985). Field studies of French and Raven’s bases of


power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research. Psychological Bulletin,

97(3), 387-411.

Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., & Huber, V.L. (1984). Situational moderators of

leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 34(1), 21-63.

Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader contingent and

noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and

satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 810-821.

Posner, E., & Vermeule, A. (2006). Should coercive interrogation be legal? Michigan Law

Review, 104(4), 671-707.

Preacher, K., Rucker, D., MacCallum, R., & Nicewander, W.A. (2005). Use of the extreme

groups approach: A critical reexamination and new recommendations. Psychological

Methods, 10(2), 178-192.

Ragins, B., & Sundstrom, E. (1990). Gender and perceived power in manager-subordinate

relations. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 273-287.

Rahim, M.A. (1986). Some psychometric properties of two measures of French and Raven bases

of power. Journal of Psychology, 120(5), 465-472.

Rahim, M.A. (1988). The development of a leader power inventory. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 23(4), 491-503.

Rahim, M.A. (1989). Relationships of leader power to compliance and satisfaction with

supervision: Evidence from a national sample of managers. Journal of Management,

15(4), 545-557.

Rahim, M., & Afza, M. (2001). Leader power, organizational commitment, satisfaction,


compliance and propensity to leave a job among U.S. accountants. Journal of Social

Psychology, 133(5), 611-625.

Rahim, M., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model of leader power,

subordinates’ style of handling conflict, and job performance. International Journal of

Conflict Management, 12(3), 191-211.

Rahim, M.A., & Buntzman, G.F. (1989). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling conflict

with subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction. Journal of Psychology,

123(2), 195-210.

Rahim, M.A., Khan, A.A., & Uddin, S.J. (1994). Leader power and subordinates’ organizational

organizational commitment and effectiveness: Test of a theory in a developing country.

International Executive, 36(3), 327-341.

Rahim, M.A., Kim, N.H., & Kim, J.S. (1994). Bases of leader power, subordinate compliance,

and satisfaction with supervision: A cross-cultural study of managers in the U.S. and S.

Korea. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2(2), 136-154.

Rahim, M.A., & Magner, N.R. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the bases of leader power:

First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 31(4), 495-516.

Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2010). Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and

extra-role employee behaviors: Exploring the role of psychological empowerment and

power values. Human Relations, 63(11), 1743-1770.

Raven, B.H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven

thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7(2), 217-244.

Raven, B.H. (2004). Six Bases of Power. Encyclopedia of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:


Sage.

Raven, B., & French, J. (1958). Group support, legitimate power, and social influence. Journal

of Personality, 26(3), 400-409.

Raven, B., & French, J. (1958). Legitimate power, coercive power, and observability in social

influence. Sociometry, 21(2), 83-97.

Raven, B., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a

power/interaction model of social influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

28(4), 307-332.

Ray, T., Clegg, S., & Gordon, R. (2004). A new look at dispersed leadership: Power, knowledge

and context. In J. Storey (Ed.), Leadership in organizations (pp. 319-336). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Rosenblatt, V. (2012). Hierarchies, power inequalities, and organizational corruption. Journal of

Business Ethics, 111, 237-251.

Rodin, J., & Janis, I.L. (1979). The social power of health-care practitioners as agents of change.

Journal of Social Issues, 35(1), 60-81.

Rodrigues, A., & Lloyd, K.K. (1998). Reexamining bases of power from an attributional

perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(11), 973-997.

Romero, E. (2005). The effect of Hispanic Ethnicity on the Leadership Process. International

Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 28-43.

Rossiter, J.R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305-335.

Rouse, L.P. (1983). Social power in the college classroom: The impact of instructor resource

manipulation and student dependence on graduate students’ mood and morale. American


Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 375-383.

Roy, W. (2004). Power and culture in organizations: Two contrasting views. Sociological

Forum, 19(1), 163-171.

Russell, A.M., & Fiske, S.T. (2010). Power and social perception. In A. Guinote & T.K. Vescio

(Eds.), The social psychology of power (pp. 231-250), New York: Guilford Press.

Salem, D., Reischl, T., Gallacher, F., & Randall, K. (2000). The role of referent and expert

power in mutual help. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(3), 303-324.

Salzwedel, D. (2002). Leadership and power. Executive Excellence, 19(6), 5.

Scammon, D., Tabler, J., Brunisholz, K., Gren, L., Kim, J., Tomoaia-Cotisel, A., Day, J., Farrell,

T., Waitzman, N., & Magill, M. (2014). Organizational culture associated with provider

satisfaction. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 27(2), 219-228.

Scheer, L.K., & Stern, L.W. (1992). The effect of influence type and performance outcomes on

attitude toward the influencer. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 128-142.

Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership, 4th Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Schlenker, B., Nacci, P., Helm, B., & Tedeschi, J. (1976). Reactions to coercive and reward

power: The effects of switching influence modes on target compliance. Sociometry,

39(4), 316-323.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H., & Smith, D.B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel

Psychology, 48, 747-773.

Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., & Davis, J.H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational

trust. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354.

Schopfler, J., & Layton, B. (1974). Attributions of interpersonal power. In J.T. Tedeschi (Ed.),


Perspectives on social power (pp.34-60). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Schriesheim, C., Hinkin, T., & Podsakoff, P. (1991). Can ipsative and single-item measures

produce erroneous results in field studies of French and Raven’s (1959) five bases of

power? An empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 106-114.

Schwarzmuller, T., Brosi, P., Sporrle, M., & Welpe, I. (2014). More than just power: differential

effects of anger displays via the bases of power. Academy of Management Annual

Meeting Proceedings, 21516561.

Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Agassi, V. (2001). Captain’s leadership type and police

officers’ compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and Psychology, 10(3),

273-290.

Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky,M., & Ochana-Levin, T. (2004). Usage of and compliance with

power tactics in routine versus nonroutine work settings. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 18(3), 385-402.

Sen, A., & Metzger, J. (2010). Women leadership and global power: Evidence from the United

States and Latin America. International Journal of Management and Marketing

Research, 3(2), 75-84.

Sersic, D.M. (1999). An empirical test of Meyer and Allen’s three-component model of

organizational commitment in a Croatian context. Review of Psychology, 6(1-2), 17-24.

Shanmugam, M., & Haigh, A. (n.d.). Leadership styles: Gender similarities, differences and

perceptions. Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment, University of

Salford, Salford, UK.

Shaw, J.I., & Condelli, L. (1986). Effects of compliance outcome and basis of power on the

powerholder-target relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(2), 236-

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&searchType=journal&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Schwarzwald%2C+J)

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&searchType=journal&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Koslowsky%2C+M)

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?action=runSearch&type=advanced&searchType=journal&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Agassi%2C+V)


246.

Sheridan, J.E., & Vredenburgh, D.J. (1978). Usefulness of leadership behavior and social power

variables in predicting job tension, performance, and turnover of nursing employees.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(1), 89-95.

Shetty, Y.K. (1978). Managerial power and organizational effectiveness: A contingency analysis.

Journal of Management Studies, 15(2), 176-186.

Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Winograd, G. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means,

why it matters. Organization Development Journal, 18(4), 35-48.

Shukla, R.K. (1982). Influence of power bases in organizational decision-making: A contingency

model. Decision Sciences, 13(3), 450-470.

Shurbagi, A., & Zahari, I. (2013). The relationship between transformational leadership and

organizational culture in National Oil Corporation of Libya. International Journal of

Business Administration, 4(4), 26-34.

Sieber, A. (2007). Leadership, power and morality: A brief address. Management in Education,

21(4), 6-7.

Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2012). Dissertation and Scholarly Research: Recipes for Success.

Dissertation Success, LLC: USA.

Sivanathan, N., Pillutla, M., & Murnighan, K. (2008). Power gained, power lost. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 135-146.

Slabu, L., & Guinote, A. (2010). Getting what you want: Power increases the accessibility of

active goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 344-349.

Smith, K., Matkin, G., & Fritz, S. (2004). A Review of Gender and Full-Range Leadership:

Research and suggestions for future research. Journal of Leadership Education, 3(2), 51-


68.

Smith, P.B., & Peterson, M.F. (1988). Leadership, organizations, and culture: An event

management model. London: Sage.

Smith, C. G., & Vecchio, R.P. (2007). Organizational culture and strategic leadership: Issues in

the management of strategic change. In R.P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding

the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 491-506). Notre Dame, IN:

University of Notre Dame Press.

Son, L., & Schmitt, N. (1983). The influence of sex bias upon compliance with expert power.

Sex Roles, 9(2), 233-246.

Soranastaporn, S. (2001). The relationship between the power of department chairs, faculty

conflict, empowerment, and compliance at Mahidol University in Thailand. Dissertation

for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree, Illinois State University. Retrieved from

202.28.199.34/multim/3064502.pdf.

Spekman, R.E. (1979). Influence and information: An exploratory investigation of the boundary

role person’s basis of power. Academy of Management Journal, 22(1), 104-117.

Spitzer, D.R. (1996). Power rewards: Rewards that really motivate. Management Review, May.

Stahelski, A.J., Frost, D.E., & Patch, M.E. (1989). Use of socially dependent bases of power:

French and Raven’s theory applied to workgroup leadership. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 19(4), 283-297.

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Student, K.R. (1968). Supervisory influence and work group performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 52(3), 188-194.


Summers, J., & Nowicki, M. (2005). Leadership and power. Healthcare Financial Management,

59(12), 96-97.

Sysinger, Y.E. (n.d.). A study of organizational culture and organizational commitment in

manufacturing organizations. Dissertation Abstracts, Perdue University.

Szilagyi, A.D. (1980). Reward behavior by male and female leaders: A causal inference analysis.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16(1), 59-72.

Tandon, K., Ansari, M.A., & Kapoor, A. (1991). Attributing upward influence attempts in

organizations. Journal of Psychology, 125(1), 59-63.

Tannenbaum, A.S. (1968). Control in organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Taylor, J., & Woodside, A. (1982). Effects on buying behavior of references to expert and

referent power. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 25-31.

Tedeschi, J.T., Lindskold, S., Horai, J., & Gahagan, J.P. (1969). Social power and the credibility

of promises. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(3), 253-261.

Thamhain, H.J., & Gemmill, G.R. (1974). Influence styles of project managers: Some project

performance correlates. Academy of Management Journal, 17(2), 216-224.

Tharp, B. (2009). Four organizational culture types. Haworth: Organizational Culture White

Paper, 1-6.

(1992). The power hierarchy. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 13(3),

19.

Thomas, R., Sargent, L., & Hardy, C. (2011). Managing organizational change: Negotiating

meaning and power-resistance relations. Organization Science, 22(1), 22-41.

Tipton, E. (2016). Pipelines to Leadership: Aspirations of Faculty in the Community College

Kentucky Community and Technical College System. Theses and Dissertations—


Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation. Paper 40.

http://uknowledge.uky.edu/epe_etds/40

Tjosvold, D. (1985). Power and social context in superior-subordinate interaction.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(3), 281-293.

Tjosvold, D. (1995). Effects of power to reward and punish in cooperative and competitive

contexts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(6), 723-736.

Tost, L., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative

impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5),

1465-1486.

Truman, H. (1954). Presidential powers: Leadership responsibilities. Vital Speeches of the Day,

487-489.

Vecchio, R.P. (2007). Effective followership: Leadership turned upside down. In R.P. Vecchio

(Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations

(pp. 109-118). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Veissiere, S. (2016). What is the Trump Effect? Psychology Today, November 9.

Voyer, B., & McIntosh, B. (2013). Psychological effects of power on self-perception:

implications for leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 34(7),

639-660.

Warren, D.I. (1968). Power, visibility, and conformity in formal organizations. American

Sociological Review, 33, 951-970.

Warren, D. (1969). The effects of power bases and peer groups on conformity in formal

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(4), 544-557.

Willer, R., Youngreen, R., Troyer, L., & Lovaglia, M. (2012). How do the powerful attain

http://uknowledge.uky.edu/epe_etds/40


status? The roots of legitimate power inequalities. Managerial and Decision Economics,

33, 355-367.

Wilson, F. (2014). Organizational Behavior and Work: A Critical Introduction, 4e. New York:

Oxford.

Wilson, R. (1974). Legitimate power and illegitimate revolution: A third-world dilemma.

Journal of Applied Behavioral science, 10(3), 438-450.

Wisecarver, M., Schneider, R., Foldes, H., Cullen, M., & Zbylut, M.R. (2011). Knowledge,

Skills and Abilities for Military Leader Influence. Technical Report 1281, United States

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Science.

Wong, K. (2005). Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small

and medium enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(3), 261 - 279

Wong, C., & Law, K. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on

performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243-

274.

Yazici, H.J. (2011). Significance of organizational culture in perceived project and business

performance. Engineering Management Journal, 23(2), 20-29.

Yeung, J., Selen, W., Zhang, M., & Huo, B. (2009). The effects of trust and coercive power on

supplier integration. International Journal of Production Economics, 120, 66-78.

Yu, T., & Wu, N. (2011). Bureaucratic hierarchy versus feudal hierarchy: A study on the

organizational culture of China’s SOEs. International Journal of Business and

Management, 6(2), 139-146.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral

relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 416-423.


Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81(3), 309-317.

Ziegler, W., & Ramage, D. (2012). Taking a risk: Sharing leadership and power. Principal

Leadership, 12, 34-38.

Zafirovski, M. (2001). The nature and operation of power in society and organizations: An

interdisciplinary, neo-Weberian and ethical framework. In S.K. Chakraborty and P.

Bhattacharya (Eds.), Leadership and Power: Ethical Explorations (pp.99-115). New

Delhi: Oxford.

Zavyalova, E., & Kucherov, D. (2010). Relationship between organizational culture and job

satisfaction in Russian business enterprises. Human Resource Development

International, 13(2), 225-235.

Zheng, J. (2010). Cross-cultural study on French and Chinese managers’ use of power sources.

International Journal of Business and Management, 5(5), 219-225.

Zhu, Y., & Akhtar, S. (2014). The mediating effects of cognition-based trust and affect-based

trust in transformational leadership’s dual processes: Evidence from China. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(20), 2755-2771.

Zweigenhaft, R. L. (2013). Diversity among CEOs and Corporate Directors: Has the heyday

come and gone? Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American

Sociological Association, New York City, August 12, 2013.