Power Point Presentation - Strategic Leadership

Veedish

RelationalPower.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Power Point Presentation - Strategic Leadership

Relational power and influence strategies: a step further in

understanding power dynamics Melody P.M. Chong

City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China

Ping Ping Fu The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China, and

Yu Fan Shang University of Xi’an JiaoTong, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the existence of relational power which is derived from an indigenous Chinese construct – guanxi. The authors also test the hypotheses of relational power with two well established power sources (position and personal power) and their relationships with influence strategies (persuasive, assertive and relationship-based).

Design/methodology/approach – The authors employed a mixed method approach. The survey study included 438 Chinese respondents whereas the follow-up interview study included 17 managers from different industries, collected across main cities in China.

Findings – The analysis of the data from survey responses provides support for the authors’ argument regarding the existence of relational power. Survey results showed that all three power sources predicted leaders’ choices of influence strategies. The follow-up qualitative findings from additional interviews with managers also shed interesting insights into the dynamics of different power sources.

Research limitations/implications – The use of a convenience sample may limit the generalizability of the findings. Notwithstanding, the study contributes to the power literature by adding a new dimension to the existing power typology, thus helping us better understand how different power sources affect leaders’ choices of influence strategies.

Practical implications – The study offers new insights to both practitioners and academicians, which is of growing importance because knowledge on power sources and understanding how it operates should help managers consciously cultivate desirable types of power. This study also shows the dynamics of guanxi, thus helping the Westerners better understand work relationships in China and understand why guanxi/relational power is effective here.

Originality/value – The paper integrates the power-dependency theory and an indigenous Chinese construct – guanxi and empirically examines how the authors’ proposed power source – relational power – affects leaders’ choices of influence strategies. The paper argues that by adding this new power source to the power typology which has dominated the power literature for half a century can fully capture the sources of power embedded in an organizational setting, and generate practical implications on leader-member interactions.

Keywords Power-dependence theory, Power sources, Guanxi, Relational power, Influence strategies, Management power, China

Paper type Research paper

Introduction Power exists in every position in an organization (Kotter, 1985), which explains why power is such a commonly discussed topic in the study of organizations (Yukl, 2006).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-614X.htm

Chinese Management Studies Vol. 7 No. 1, 2013

pp. 53-73 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1750-614X DOI 10.1108/17506141311307596

Understanding power dynamics

In most power studies researchers have used both French and Raven’s (1959) five-dimension (expert, referent, reward, coercive, and legitimate) typology or a two-dimension (personal versus position) power model (Bass, 1960; Etzioni, 1961; Yukl and Falbe, 1991). Power has also been recognized as a property of the social relationship that entails ties of mutual dependence between the parties (Emerson, 1962). However, neither the five-dimension nor the two-dimension typology captures the effect of power force embedded in the relationship between the agent and the target. For example, they cannot explain why a person without position or personal power can sometimes convince other people to comply with a job request; or why another person with position or personal power may not achieve the same outcome when making the same request.

In this paper, we define relational power as a force stemming from affective relationship between an agent (a leader) and a target (his/her followers, Shang et al., 2012). The relationship involves feelings or ganqing in Chinese, an essential component in guanxi (Chen and Chen, 2004). As a special term, relational power first appeared in Harvard Business Essentials (2005). In the book chapter, “Power Sources,” relational power, defined as “informal power stems from your relationships with others,” was discussed along with position and personal power. The chapter introduced relational power from a practical point of view with examples showing its existence in the work place. We found the chapter inspiring because it showed that relationships can indeed be treated as a kind of power (Shang et al., 2012), but were disappointed that it did not offer answers to any of our more serious questions, such as how it operates in the work place.

Later, Fu et al. (2008) suggested that relational power could serve as a potential power base and discussed the potential impact of each power base (position, personal and relational) on different influence strategies. However, we did not find an empirical study that has tested the legitimacy of the additional dimension, thus making it impossible to offer evidence that a relationship could be an additional power source or provide useful implications for practitioners. We therefore intend to find out empirically whether relational power exists and develop the construct in order to examine the relationship between power sources and influence strategies.

In the following sections, we will first review the literature on power sources, and then integrate Emerson’s (1962, 1976) power-dependence theory and guanxi to explain why relational power should be included as an additional power source. We develop hypotheses for the effects of different power sources on different influence strategies. Finally, we report the findings from two empirical studies: Study 1 tests the hypothesized relationships between three types of power sources and influence strategies, using survey data from 438 participants. Study 2 examines the dynamics of the power-influence relationship in real organizational settings based on 17 interviews.

Our study contributes to the power and influence literature in three ways. The primary theoretical contribution lies in an integration of the power-dependency theory (Emerson, 1962, 1976) and guanxi in explaining the relationship between the different types of power sources a leader holds, and his/her choice of influence strategies as perceived by the follower. In addition, the study extends the power literature by adding a new dimension to the existing power typology, thus helping us better understand how different power sources (position, personal and relational) affect leaders’ choices of influence strategies. Finally, it offers new insights to both practitioners and academicians. The last contribution is increasingly important because knowledge

CMS 7,1

about power sources and understanding how it operates should help encourage managers to consciously cultivate desirable types of power and be more confident when exercising influence strategies to achieve overall effectiveness (Fu et al., 2008).

Literature review and theoretical background Power sources/bases In their original paper on power typology, French and Raven (1959) presented five bases of power. Specifically, reward power stems from the ability of the agent to offer a positive incentive such as a raise in pay, a promotion, and special work privileges. Coercive power is when the agent brings about change by threatening the target with negative or undesirable consequences such as demotion and termination. Legitimate power stems from the target’s accepting the right of the agent to require the changed behavior. Expert power results from the target’s faith that the agent has some superior insight or knowledge and referent power originates from the target identifying with the agent, or seeing the agent as a model that the target would want to emulate. Position power (reward, coercive and legitimate) bases are associated with the position that a supervisor holds in an organization whereas personal power (expert and referent) bases are related to a supervisor’s personal effort or ability, therefore the typologies are also compressed into two; position power and personal power (Bass, 1960; Etzioni, 1961; Rahim, 2009). The two-dimension taxonomy has also been empirically tested by some researchers (Ringer and Boss, 2000; Steensma and van Milligen, 2003).

Over the years, there have been extensive efforts to expand the power typology. For instance, Yukl and Falbe (1991) added persuasive power and charismatic power, and suggested that these two power bases are associated with a leader’s personal power. Finkelstein (1992) also proposed structure, ownership, and prestige power bases. Raven et al. (1998) further differentiated legitimate power into sub-categories (i.e. reciprocity, equity, dependence). Nesler et al. (1999) developed global power (i.e. ability to influence others), and resistance and control power (i.e. ability of controlling others). However, again, none of these additional dimensions captures the effect of the relationships between the two parties.

Relational power: an extension of the power typology Our idea of proposing “relationship” as a power source was inspired by an indigenous Chinese construct – guanxi. In China, interpersonal relationships, referred to as guanxi (Law et al., 2000), are a shared characteristic of the Chinese societies essential for both personal and business effectiveness. Defined as “an informal, particularistic personal connection between two individuals who are bounded by an implicit psychological contract” (Chen and Chen, 2004, p. 306), guanxi is more subtle and intricate than the simple translation could reflect. For example, this affection-based nature of guanxi also indicates the state or the closeness of the relationship at a given point in time (Chen and Chen, 2004).

A related stream of research has been conducted in Mainland China, concerning how guanxi functioned at different organizational settings (Law et al., 2000; Fu et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2009; Cheung et al., 2009). Recently, guanxi has also gained status as a legitimate socio-cultural construct in Western mainstream literature (Chen and Chen, 2004). As a construct, relationship or interpersonal relationships have also been studied as an important factor in organizational behavior under different labels in the

Understanding power dynamics

West (Kenrick et al., 2007). For instance, the most cited constructs include the leader-member exchange theory (LMX) (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden and Maslyn, 1998), and social networks (Ferrin et al., 2006).

While work relationships in the West are based on “exchanges between two interacting members, typically directed at the accomplishment of some common objectives or goals” (Ferris et al., 2009, p. 1379); guanxi not only just generates its influence in “everyday personal life,” but it also has specific implications for work relationships. For example, when two individuals have developed a good relationship, they follow the social norm of guanxi such as maintaining a long term relationship, mutual commitment, loyalty, and obligation (Chen and Chen, 2004). In an affection-based relationship, in particular, the two parties would socialize outside work, discussing personal problems and exchanging advice on personal issues, making mutual commitment and loyalty all the more possible (Smith et al., 1989; Chen and Chen, 2004).

Our overall argument is that guanxi can become a source of power to a leader and also influence the leader’s attitudes and behavior in ways different from the position power or personal power of an agent as identified in the Western power literature (Fu et al., 2008). To develop this argument, we draw on Emerson’s (1962, 1976) power-dependence model as an explanation for why relationships can be treated as a type of power in a superior-subordinate relationship. We integrate this perspective with the affection-based guanxi to show how relational power differs from position and personal power as a dependent variable.

Conceptual framework As suggested by Emerson (1962, p. 32), “power is a property of the social relation; it is not an attribute of the actor.” Emerson suggests that an actor can either be an individual person or a small group of people, such as person-person, group-person, or group-group. The ties of mutual dependence imply that each party is in a position, to some degree, to grant or deny, facilitate or hinder the other’s gratification. According to Emerson, an actor – A – depends upon another actor – B – if he/she aspires to goals or gratifications whose achievement is facilitated by appropriate actions on B’s part. The proposition of “goal” is used to refer to “gratifications consciously sought” or “rewards unconsciously obtained” through the relationship.

We follow Emerson’s (1976) conceptualization to argue that the reciprocal flow of valued behaviors or resources between the actors can be described as the transaction and exchange of ganqing, an implicit and internal exchange between the two parties. While all three types of power sources involve an outcome of exchange or a goal of influence (e.g. choices of influence strategies), a salient difference between relational power and the other two power sources is that, the exchange of ganqing involves the efforts of both parties and this type of exchange produces relational power.

As Figure 1 shows, under the reciprocity of social relations, the power-dependence relation can be presented as a pair of equations: Pab ¼ Dba, or Pba ¼ Dab, where P ¼ power and D ¼ dependence. The reciprocal flow of valued behavior (here, qing/feelings) between the actors (i.e. a superior/agent and a subordinate/target) can be described as “transaction and exchange” and can be stated as Ax or By, where x and y are resources introduced into the exchange by A and B, respectively, (Emerson, 1976). Any ability possessed by Actor A is a resource only when it is connected with another actor, Actor B, who values it (Shang et al., 2012).

CMS 7,1

Although the above dependence argument also applies to position or personal power, the “dependence” originating from guanxi is different because of the particular nature of guanxi. For example, a leader could have the same position or personal power over a group of followers, but he/she may only have relational power with those with whom he/she has good guanxi. Also, we must note that unlike position and personal power, the resources of relational power are not possessions or attributes of individual actors, but rather, relational power is an “attribute of the relationship between actors.” Position or personal power is that Actor A (a superior/agent) possesses the legitimacy and/or expertise with which he/she influences Actor B (a subordinate/target) in organizational settings “uni-directionally” to achieve his/her goals. By contrast, dependency for relational power is primarily based on the exchange of ganqing or feelings between A and B, which is different from legitimacy or expertise on which personal or position power is based.

Power sources and influence strategies A few studies we reviewed included both power and influence tactics. For example, Hinkin and Schriesheim (1990) showed that only one influencing tactic, rationality, had both a substantial and significant positive relationship with personal power (expert and referent power), emphasizing its importance as a means of influence in organizations. It was also found that assertiveness had a positive relationship with position power (coercive power) and a negative relationship with personal power. Yukl and Falbe (1991) found that personal power was more important than position power as a determinant of task commitment and ratings of managerial effectiveness. Ringer and Boss (2000) indicated that individuals high on the power scale were more likely to attempt influence and to use a variety of tactics. In particular, there was a strong relationship between personal power and the reasoning tactic (rational persuasion).

Amongst the dozen of studies on power and influence we reviewed, only two were conducted outside the USA, one in Israel and the other in The Netherlands. The Israeli study (Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2002) showed that power derived from both the agent and the target affected the agent’s (superior) choice of a particular influence strategy. The Netherlands study (Steensma and van Milligen, 2003) found that leaders with position power tended to use more hard tactics. However, since the paper consisted of too many types of influence tactics (e.g. front-stage, backstage, politicking, manipulating) which were not tested in most influence tactics studies, it was difficult to generalize from these results.

Figure 1. Relational power:

integrating power-dependence model

and guanxi

Understanding power dynamics

Hypotheses In an attempt to compare the effects of relational power with position and personal power sources, we develop the following hypotheses between three types of power sources and three types of influence strategies.

Position power and influence strategies Prior research seems to imply that position power is more likely to relate to the assertive strategy (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 1990; Steensma and van Milligen, 2003). However, Yukl and Falbe’s (1991) study also shows that position power is not related to any of the influence tactics. We believe that position power relates to the assertive strategy because this strategy is characterized by use of some form of coercion, and it implies at least some ability to mediate punishments for noncompliance (French and Raven, 1959). Assertiveness refers to appealing to hierarchical superiors or frequent checking, threats and demands to gain the target’s compliance. The agent who engages in such influence also has the ability to impose punishments on the target due to his/her organizational position (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 1990). We expect that if a leader’s position power is stronger, it is more likely that the leader would exercise the assertive strategy to influence subordinates to obtain quick compliance rather than using the more time-consuming persuasive or relationship-based strategy. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that perceived position power should be positively correlated with the assertive influence strategy but negatively correlated with the persuasive and relationship-based strategies:

H1. Position power is (a) positively correlated with the assertive strategy but (b) negatively correlated with the persuasive strategy; and (c) negatively correlated with the relationship-based strategy.

Personal power and influence strategies Personal power includes potential influence derived from the agent’s task expertise, and the target’s identification with the agent (Raven, 2008). Prior studies also indicate that personal power is related to rational tactics (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 1990; Yukl and Falbe, 1991). A persuasive or rational strategy is characterized by how the agent uses logical arguments when influencing the target. In an organizational setting, a manager using rational explanations to influence his or her subordinates might result in an increase in the subordinate’s perceptions of the leader’s expertise (Yukl, 2006), which is also a kind of personal power. Besides, employees often seek to simultaneously “learn the ropes” and find a “mentor” (Feldman, 1981); thus, leaders with high levels of expertise and willingness to help will be more attractive to most subordinates (Hinkin and Schriesheim, 1990). The persuasive strategy stresses logic and reasoning, whereas the relationship-based strategy shows interest in the subordinate’s career development and concerns; consequently, it is reasonable to expect personal power to be positively correlated with persuasive and relationship-based strategies. In the same vein, we predict that personal power will be negatively related to an assertive strategy because when the leader has expertise, work experience and vast knowledge about the jobs, he/she does not need to use assertive tactics. Thus, we hypothesized:

H2. Personal power is (a) positively correlated with persuasive strategy and; (b) positively correlated with the relationship-based strategy; and (c) negatively correlated with the assertive strategy.

CMS 7,1

Relational power and influence strategies By definition, relational power originates from relationships. All relationships between an agent and target will affect the agent’s choices of influence strategies when the influence is exercised (Fu et al., 2008). We predict that an informal relationship, such as a good relationship developed in a workplace, usually leads the superior to use a soft strategy, such as the persuasive or relationship-based strategy. It is more likely that when there is a good relationship between the superior and the subordinate, the superior will be more likely to use these kinds of soft strategies to influence the follower. Likewise, he or she will be more likely to use less assertive influence strategy, such as the legitimate, persistence or pressure strategy, to make the follower accept the request. In previous research, there has been evidence that a good guanxi developed in a workplace has been associated with favorable supervisory decisions (Law et al., 2000; van Knippenberg et al., 1999) also indicated that the degree to which the agent likes the target plays a central role in the choice of using hard or soft influence tactics. Therefore, we hypothesize that relational power is positively correlated with persuasive and relationship-based strategies, but negatively related to assertive strategy:

H3. Relational power is (a) positively correlated with the relationship-based strategy and (b) positively correlated with the persuasive strategy but (c) negatively correlated with the assertive strategy.

Study 1: survey study Procedures and samples We used the convenience sampling method to obtain data for the first study since respondents would be likely to want to participate in the survey since they had been part of the same former student group as one of the researchers. Survey questionnaires were distributed physically or electronically to former MBA students and their colleagues by one of the researchers located in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). We received 292 (92 per cent) usable responses out of the 316 hard copy questionnaires. Combined with the 146 usable e-version responses, we had a total of 438 respondents participating in the study. Before merging the two data sets for analysis, we compared the results from two non-biased return tests including a comparison between the early and late responses and a two-level random test. No significant differences between the two samples were found. The questionnaire was translated from English to Chinese and all survey items were back-translated into English (Brislin, 1970) to allow meaning conformity (Schaffer and Riordan, 2003). To enhance the language equivalency and reliability of the final questionnaire, we also conducted a pilot test with a sample of 60 full-time employees working in the PRC. Feedback from the respondents was received via email. Modifications were made before the final survey was sent out by mail or via e-mail.

Of the total sample, male respondents accounted for 57 per cent. The average age was between 31 and 35 years. About 69 per cent had worked for at least four years (SD ¼ 1.33). Respondents’ jobs were in information technology (20 per cent), research and development (15 per cent) and human resources (11 per cent). About 77 per cent were general staff and the rest were assistant managers (8 per cent), managers (11 per cent) or directors (3.2 per cent). Over 70 per cent of the respondents had worked with their superiors for at least two years.

Understanding power dynamics

Measures Power sources. Position and personal power sources were measured using a modified version of the widely-used Yukl and Falbe (1991) instrument. We developed the scale of relational power based on 32 scenarios collected from 15 lower or middle level managers. Items were created based on those examples and were worded in accordance to the scale items of position and personal power sources and tested prior to the survey study. In total, power sources were measured with nine items. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with each of the items on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.” Sample items are shown in Appendix 1.

Influence scenario and influence strategies. We provided a scenario before presenting the influence strategies. Leaders’ three influence strategies were measured by scales adapted from a modified instrument, previously used by Fu et al. (2004). Based on the result of a factor analysis, we divided the 15 tactics into the following four strategies. Persuasive strategy includes rational persuasion – organizational, consultation and collaboration. The core relationship-based strategy included rational persuasion – individual, inspirational appeal, and ingratiation. The peripheral relationship-based strategy included personal appeal, exchange, gift-giving, informal engagement, and socializing. The assertive strategy includes persistence; pressure, coalition and legitimating. The questionnaire consisted of 30 items, which were measured on a five-point fixed response scale, anchoring from (1) “never” to (5) “very often.” The Cronbach’s a for the four types of strategies ranged between 0.83 and 0.96. All items are shown in Appendix 2.

Control variables. To rule out possible alternative explanations to our findings, we controlled respondents’ personal demographics such as age, gender, place of birth, education. Control variables also included information on the companies they worked for and on their immediate superiors.

Managing common method variance In this study, we attempted to measure relationship with a superior as well as downward leadership behavior, as rated by subordinate respondents. In order to minimize the common method variance, we followed Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) ex ante and ex post methods. The ex ante procedures (i.e. a careful design of questionnaire, scenario setting, pilot test) help reduce people’s evaluation apprehension, and make them less likely to edit their responses. The ex post statistical remedies such as the factor and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to test the presence of common method effect. These results are reported in the next section.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses A table of the rotated factor loadings for the nine power-source items is shown in Appendix 1. We also performed confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the items for power sources to test the three-dimensional structure. The overall model’s x

2, the comparative fit index (CFI, Bentler, 1990) and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI, Tucker and Lewis, 1973) were used to assess the model fit. The three-factor model yielded an acceptable fit to the data (x 2(18) ¼ 80.32, p , 0.0001; CFI ¼ 0.93; TLI ¼ 0.88.). The Cronbach’s a is 0.68 for the first dimension (relational power), 0.68 for the second dimension (position power), and 0.80 for the third dimension (personal power). The results indicate that the three-dimensions of power sources were independent. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the single-factor model did not fit the data

CMS 7,1

well whereas all individual hypothesized models yielded a better fit: the relational power model (x2(42) ¼ 257.13, p , 0.0001; CFI ¼ 0.92; TLI ¼ 0.89, for H1); the position power model (x 2(42) ¼ 281.38, p , 0.0001; CFI ¼ 0.91; TLI ¼ 0.86, for H2); and the personal model (x 2(39) ¼ 252.64, p , 0.0001; CFI ¼ 0.93; TLI ¼ 0.89, for H3). While the results of these analyses do not preclude the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), they do suggest that common method variance is unlikely to confound the interpretation of results.

Hypotheses testing Table I presents the means, standard deviations and correlations among the main variables. Among all power sources, personal power (M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 0.83) had the highest mean outcome compared with position power (M ¼ 3.31, SD ¼ 0.85) and relational power (M ¼ 3.08, SD ¼ 0.73).

Hypotheses 1a-1c. The estimation results of H1-H3 are given in Table II. Position power has a positive effect on the assertive strategy (b ¼ 0.12, p , 0.05), supporting H1a. As predicted, position power has a negative effect on the persuasive strategy (b ¼ 20.04, p , 0.05), supporting H1b. Position power was found to have no effect on the core relationship-based strategy (not significant) but it had a positive effect on side relationship-based strategy (b ¼ 0.09, p , 0.05), thus H1c was rejected.

Hypotheses 2a-2c. Personal power had a positive effect on persuasive strategy (b ¼ 0.40, p , 0.0001), supporting H2a. Personal power has a positive effect on the core relationship-based strategy (b ¼ 0.23, p , 0.0001), but no effect on the peripheral relationship-based strategy (not significant). Thus, H2b was partially supported. Also, personal power was found to be negatively related to assertive strategy (b ¼ 20.14, p , 0.01), thus supporting H2c.

Hypotheses 3a-3c. As can be seen, relational power has positive effects on the core relationship-based strategy (b ¼ 0.17, p , 0.0001) but no effect on the peripheral relationship-based strategy (not significant). Thus, H3a was partially supported. Relational power has a positive effect on persuasive strategy (b ¼ 0.14, p , 0.01), thus supporting H3b. Relational power was found to be negatively related to the assertive strategy (b ¼ 20.11, p , 0.05) thus supporting H3c.

Study 2: a sequential explanatory interview study Samples, procedures and analyses The sequential explanatory research strategy is used to assist in explaining and interpreting the findings of our primary survey study (Creswell, 2003). After analyzing the survey data, we developed additional questions and interviewed 17 more managers. Most of these managers worked in Shenzhen, China and had worked for the same company for three or more years, and were working on their MBA degrees. The majority of them were between 26 and 29 years old and six of them were female. Of the total, six were top managers and eight were middle managers. The rest were lower level managers. Before the interview started, we used examples to define the three types of influence strategies, and then introduced the same scenario we used to collect the quantitative data from each interviewee. Finally, we asked them, in reference to the power sources, which kind of influence strategy their superiors tended to use in order to get them to do the task. Krippendorff’s (2004) counting and coding methods were used to analyze the transcripts.

Understanding power dynamics

V a ri

a b

le M

ea n

S D

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

1 A

g e

2 .9

2 1 .6

0 1

2 G

en d

er 1 .4

3 0 .5

0 2

0 .0

1 6

1 3

E d

u ca

ti o n

3 .5

8 0 .1

0 2

0 .0

7 7

0 .0

4 7

1 4

W o rk

ex p

er ie

n ce

3 .4

3 1 .3

3 0 .6

7 0

* *

2 0 .0

1 0

0 .0

2 2

1 5

M a jo

r 2 .9

3 1 .2

2 0 .1

1 2

* 0 .0

9 4

2 0 .1

7 6

* *

0 .1

6 0

* *

1 6

In d

u st

ry 8 .6

3 3 .3

5 0 .0

5 2

2 0 .0

3 8

0 .0

0 9

0 .0

9 3

0 .1

1 3

* 1

7 P

la ce

o f

co m

p a n

y 1 .0

3 0 .2

7 2

0 .0

6 2

2 0 .0

4 4

2 0 .1

1 4

* 2

0 .0

5 4

2 0 .1

3 8

* *

2 0 .0

6 8

1 8

T it

le 1 .4

3 0 .9

2 0 .1

1 0

* 2

0 .1

3 4

* *

0 .0

3 1

0 .1

8 6

* *

2 0 .0

3 0

2 0 .1

0 5

* 0 .0

0 4

1 9

S iz

e o f

co m

p a n

y 5 .2

1 2 .1

2 0 .0

0 9

2 0 .0

6 7

2 0 .1

6 4

* *

2 0 .2

4 3

* *

0 .0

3 6

0 .1

0 6

* 0 .0

6 0

2 0 .1

9 8

* *

1 1 0

A g

e o f

su p

er io

r 4 .1

9 1 .5

0 0 .3

6 2

* *

0 .0

3 1

0 .1

0 5

* 0 .4

0 8

* *

0 .1

2 2

* 0 .0

6 4

0 .1

0 3

* 0 .1

9 5

* *

2 0 .0

2 6

1 1

B ir

th p

la ce

o f

su p

er io

r 1 .0

8 0 .4

2 2

0 .0

3 4

2 0 .0

2 8

2 0 .0

6 0

2 0 .0

1 1

2 0 .1

0 9

* 2

0 .0

3 0

0 .4

3 8

* *

0 .0

2 0

2 0 .0

5 1

1 2

W o rk

y ea

rs w

it h

su p

er io

r 2 .3

2 1 .1

9 0 .3

2 5

* *

2 0 .0

3 8

2 0 .0

8 4

0 .2

3 6

* *

2 0 .0

4 7

0 .0

8 3

0 .0

9 8

* 0 .0

1 7

0 .2

1 7

* *

1 3

E d

u ca

ti o n

o f

su p

er io

r 3 .8

7 0 .9

8 0 .0

4 8

2 0 .0

3 1

0 .3

6 7

* *

0 .1

0 7

* 2

0 .0

7 1

0 .1

2 3

* 2

0 .0

5 4

0 .0

3 7

2 0 .0

6 9

1 4

R el

a ti

o n

a l

p o w

er 3 .0

8 0 .7

3 2

0 .0

9 2

2 0 .1

4 4

* *

2 0 .0

9 9

* 2

0 .1

2 8

* *

2 0 .0

7 1

2 0 .0

2 3

0 .0

1 8

0 .0

2 9

0 .0

1 4

1 5

P o si

ti o n

p o w

er 3 .3

1 0 .8

5 2

0 .0

1 5

2 0 .0

5 5

0 .0

3 5

0 .0

4 6

2 0 .0

8 7

2 0 .1

5 1

* *

2 0 .0

0 7

0 .0

8 9

2 0 .1

0 9

1 6

P er

so n

a l

p o w

er 3 .6

8 0 .8

3 2

0 .1

2 0

* 0 .0

7 4

2 0 .0

0 5

2 0 .1

6 0

* *

2 0 .0

5 4

0 .0

3 9

2 0 .0

1 9

2 0 .1

2 0

* 0 .1

1 2

1 7

P er

su a si

v e

st ra

te g

y 3 .4

1 0 .8

8 2

0 .1

4 8

* *

2 0 .0

4 5

2 0 .0

2 1

2 0 .1

8 2

* *

2 0 .0

8 5

0 .0

1 8

0 .0

3 5

2 0 .0

4 7

0 .0

7 9

1 8

C o re

re la

ti o n

sh ip

st ra

te g

y 2 .8

2 0 .8

8 2

0 .1

7 5

* *

2 0 .1

1 8

* 2

0 .0

6 1

2 0 .2

2 8

* *

2 0 .1

1 8

* 0 .0

1 9

0 .0

3 5

0 .0

1 2

0 .1

1 5

1 9

S id

e re

la ti

o n

sh ip

st ra

te g

y 1 .7

9 0 .9

7 2

0 .1

8 9

* *

2 0 .2

2 9

* *

2 0 .2

9 7

* *

2 0 .3

2 9

* *

2 0 .1

2 6

* *

2 0 .0

7 2

0 .1

1 5

* 0 .0

7 2

0 .3

0 7

* *

2 0

A ss

er ti

v e

st ra

te g

y 2 .2

5 0 .9

8 2

0 .1

3 0

* *

2 0 .2

2 5

* *

2 0 .1

8 7

* *

2 0 .2

0 1

* *

2 0 .0

9 1

0 .0

8 0

0 .0

1 1

0 .1

1 0

* 0 .1

6 7

* *

(c o n ti

n u ed

)

Table I. Mean, standard deviations and correlations

CMS 7,1

V a ri

a b

le 1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

1 A

g e

2 G

en d

er 3

E d

u ca

ti o n

4 W

o rk

ex p

er ie

n ce

5 M

a jo

r 6

In d

u st

ry 7

P la

ce o f

co m

p a n

y 8

T it

le 9

S iz

e o f

co m

p a n

y 1 0

A g

e o f

su p

er io

r 1

1 1

B ir

th p

la ce

o f

su p

er io

r 0 .0

0 0

1 1 2

W o rk

y ea

rs w

it h

su p

er io

r 0 .2

3 2

* *

0 .0

4 4

1 1 3

E d

u ca

ti o n

o f

su p

er io

r 0 .0

3 5

2 0 .0

0 8

0 .0

1 1

1 1 4

R el

a ti

o n

a l

p o w

er 2

0 .1

1 2

* 2

0 .1

1 9

* 2

0 .0

5 2

0 .0

3 3

(0 .6

8 )

1 5

P o si

ti o n

p o w

er 2

0 .0

4 6

0 .0

8 0

0 .0

6 3

2 0 .0

2 8

2 0 .1

3 7

* *

(0 .6

8 )

1 6

P er

so n

a l

p o w

er 2

0 .1

0 3

* 2

0 .0

6 6

2 0 .0

5 8

0 .0

3 1

0 .1

6 0

* *

0 .0

6 8

(0 .8

0 )

1 7

P er

su a si

v e

st ra

te g

y 2

0 .1

5 7

* *

2 0 .0

2 2

0 .0

1 8

0 .1

2 8

* *

0 .1

6 2

* *

2 0 .0

3 6

0 .4

1 1

* *

(0 .8

8 )

1 8

C o re

re la

ti o n

sh ip

st ra

te g

y 2

0 .1

9 8

* *

0 .0

2 8

0 .0

4 8

0 .0

1 9

0 .1

9 3

* *

0 .0

6 6

0 .2

4 7

* *

0 .6

5 1

* *

(0 .8

3 )

1 9

S id

e re

la ti

o n

sh ip

st ra

te g

y 2

0 .2

5 1

* *

0 .1

1 4

* 0 .2

1 6

* *

2 0 .1

8 2

* *

0 .0

4 2

0 .1

3 1

* *

0 .0

5 4

0 .2

5 0

* *

0 .5

1 0

* *

(0 .9

6 )

2 0

A ss

er ti

v e

st ra

te g

y 2

0 .1

4 2

* *

0 .0

7 0

0 .2

2 3

* *

2 0 .1

8 4

* *

2 0 .1

0 2

* 0 .2

1 3

* *

2 0 .1

3 9

* *

0 .0

8 4

0 .3

8 3

* *

0 .7

5 0

* *

(0 .9

1 )

Table I.

Understanding power dynamics

P o si

ti o n

p o w

er M

o d

el 1

M o d

el 2

P er

so n

a l

p o w

er M

o d

el 1

M o d

el 2

R el

a ti

o n

a l

p o w

er M

o d

el 1

M o d

el 2

H 1 a

H 2 a

H 3 a

D ep

en d

en t

v a ri

a b

le :

a ss

er ti

v e

st ra

te g

y D

ep en

d en

t v

a ri

a b

le :

p er

su a si

v e

st ra

te g

y D

ep en

d en

t v

a ri

a b

le :

C O

R E

re la

ti o n

sh ip

-b a se

d st

ra te

g y

A g

e o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .2

0 *

* *

* 2

0 .1

9 *

* *

* A

g e

o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .1

6 *

* *

2 0 .1

2 *

* A

g e

o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .2

0 *

* *

* 2

0 1 8

* *

W o rk

ex p

w it

h su

p er

io r

0 .2

7 *

* *

* 0 .2

7 *

* *

* E

d u

ca ti

o n

o f

su p

er io

r 0 .1

3 *

* 2

0 .1

2 *

E d

u ca

ti o n

o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .

1 8

* *

2 0 .1

8 *

* *

P o si

ti o n

p o w

er 0 .l 2

* (0

.0 6 )

P er

so n

a l

p o w

er 2

0 .4

0 *

* *

* (0

.0 5 )

R el

a ti

o n

a l

p o w

er 0 .1

7 *

* *

(0 .0

6 )

F 2 0 .1

1 *

* *

* 1 6 .9

9 *

* *

* F

9 .6

7 *

* *

* 3 5 .3

7 *

* *

* F

1 7 .7

1 *

* *

* 1 5 .9

9 *

* *

A d

ju st

ed R

2 0 .1

7 0 .1

3 A

d ju

st ed

R 2

0 .0

4 0 .1

9 A

d ju

st ed

R 2

0 .0

4 0 .0

7 D

R 2

0 .1

2 0 .0

1 D

R 2

0 .0

4 0 .1

5 D

R 2

0 .0

4 0 .0

6 D

F 6 .8

4 *

* D

F 8 3 .1

2 *

* *

* D

F 7 .7

5 *

* N

S ,

o n

si d

e re

la ti

o n

sh ip

2 b

a se

d st

ra te

g y

H 1 b

H 2 b

H 3 b

D ep

en d

en t

v a ri

a b

le :

p er

su a si

v e

st ra

te g

y D

ep en

d en

t v

a ri

a b

le :

C O

R E

re la

ti o n

sh ip

-b a se

d st

ra te

g y

D ep

en d

en t

v a ri

a b

le :

p er

su a si

v e

st ra

te g

y A

g e

o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .1

6 *

* *

2 0 .1

6 *

* *

A g

e o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .2

0 *

* *

* 2

0 .1

7 *

* *

* A

g e

o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .1

6 *

* *

2 0 .1

5 *

E d

u ca

ti o n

o f

su p

er io

r 0 .1

3 *

* 0 .1

3 *

* E

d u

ca ti

o n

o f

su p

er io

r 0 .1

3 *

* 0 .1

3 *

P o si

ti o n

p o w

er 2

0 .0

4 * (0

.0 5 )

P er

so n

a l

p o w

er 0 .2

3 *

* *

* (0

.0 5 )

R el

a ti

o n

a l

p o w

er 0 .1

4 *

* (0

.0 6 )

F 9 .6

7 *

* *

* 6 .6

9 *

* *

* F

1 7 .7

1 *

* *

* 2 1 .7

1 *

* *

* F

9 .6

7 *

* *

* 9 .6

3 *

* *

A d

ju st

ed R

2 0 .0

4 0 .0

4 A

d ju

st ed

R 2

0 .0

4 0 .0

9 A

d ju

st ed

R 2

0 .0

4 0 .0

6 D

R 2

0 .0

4 0

D R

2 0 .0

4 0 .0

5 D

R 2

0 .0

4 0 .0

2 D

F 0 .7

3 D

F 2 4 .7

4 *

* *

* D

F 9 .1

7 *

* N

S .

o n

si d

e re

ta ti

o n

sh ip

-b a se

d st

ra te

g y

(c o n ti

n u ed

)

Table II. Regression analyses

CMS 7,1

P o si

ti o n

p o w

er M

o d

el 1

M o d

el 2

P er

so n

a l

p o w

er M

o d

el 1

M o d

el 2

R el

a ti

o n

a l

p o w

er M

o d

el 1

M o d

el 2

H 1 c

H 2 c

H 3 c

D ep

en d

en t

v a ri

a b

le :

S ID

E re

la ti

o n

sh ip

-b a se

d st

ra te

g y

D ep

en d

en t

v a ri

a b

le :

a ss

er ti

v e

st ra

te g

y D

ep en

d en

t v

a ri

a b

le :

a ss

er ti

v e

st ra

te g

y A

g e

o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .3

3 *

* *

* 2

0 .3

1 *

* *

* A

g e

o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .2

0 *

* *

* 2

0 .2

1 *

* *

A g

e o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .2

0 *

* *

* 2

0 .2

1 *

* *

B ir

th p

la ce

0 .1

0 *

0 .0

9 *

W o rk

ex p

w it

h su

p er

io r

0 .2

7 *

* *

* 0 .2

7 *

* *

* W

o rk

ex p

w it

h su

p er

io r

0 .2

7 *

* *

* 0 .2

7 *

* *

W o rk

ex p

w it

h su

p er

io r

0 .2

9 *

* *

* 0 .2

8 *

E d

u ca

ti o n

o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .1

8 *

* *

* 2

0 .1

8 *

* *

* E

d u

ca ti

o n

o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .1

8 *

* *

* 2

0 .1

8 *

* *

E d

u ca

ti o n

o f

su p

er io

r 2

0 .1

7 *

* *

* 2

0 .1

7 *

* *

P o si

ti o n

p o w

er 0

.0 9

* (0

.0 5 )

P er

so n

a l

p o w

er 2

0 .1

4 *

* (0

. 0 5 )

R el

a ti

o n

a l

p o w

er 2

0 .1

1 * (0

.0 6 )

F 2 0 .1

8 *

* *

2 0 .2

8 *

* *

* F

2 0 .1

1 *

* *

* 1 7 .8

3 *

* *

* F

2 0 .1

1 *

* *

* 1 6 .6

3 *

* *

A d

ju st

ed R

2 0 .1

8 0 .1

8 A

d ju

st ed

R 2

0 .1

2 0 .1

3 A

d ju

st ed

R 2

0 .1

2 0 .1

3 D

R 2

0 .1

8 0 .0

1 D

R 2

0 .1

2 0 .0

2 D

R 2

0 .1

2 0 .0

1 D

F 3 .9

9 *

D F

9 .7

9 *

* D

F 5 .5

5 *

* N

S o n

co re

re la

ti o n

sh ip

-b a se

d st

ra te

g y

N o te s :

S ig

n ifi

ca n

t a t:

* p ,

0 .0

5 ,

* * p ,

0 .0

1 ,

* *

* p ,

0 .0

0 1 ,

* *

* * p ,

0 .0

0 0 1

(t w

o -t

a il

ed te

st s)

; n ¼

4 3 8 ;

ta b

le co

n ta

in s

st a n

d a rd

iz ed

re g

re ss

io n

co ef

fi ci

en ts

;s ta

n d

a rd

er ro

rs a re

in p

a re

n th

es es

;a ll

m o d

el s

in cl

u d

ed co

n tr

o l v

a ri

a b

le s;

v is

u a l

d es

cr ip

ti o n

s fo

r n

o n

-s ig

n ifi

ca n

t re

su lt

s a re

n o t

p ro

v id

e d

u e

to sp

a ce

co n

st ra

in ts

Table II.

Understanding power dynamics

Findings from the interviews Position power and influence strategies. The majority of the interviewees (88 per cent) reported that they believed that there was a positive relationship between position power and the assertive influence strategy. Most of them believed that the assertive strategy was “taken for granted” or had “first priority” when the leader had position power. Some of them also suggested that superiors tend to use the form of “executive authority or order” to get their subordinates to comply with a task. As one manager said, “He is my superior and he uses assertive influence tactics. This is his general strategy.” Another marketing manager said:

In most circumstances, people with strong position power tend not to worry about how to communicate with others [. . .] you just cannot imagine such people beating about the bush when talking to you [. . .] this is also their basic perception and strategy – this is your job; this is what you have to do and this is your responsibility.

This finding supports our survey results, suggesting that there is a negative relationship between position power and persuasive influence strategy, particularly when influencing front-line workers.

However, when dealing with employees who were perceived to be capable and had some influence in the organization, their superiors tended to use the persuasive strategy instead. For instance, one senior manager reported that his manager would tell him “clearly the details of the task as well as its consequences to the department or organization” when making an attempt to use influence strategy. Another one also stated that when his senior manager asked them to do something:

He does not use pressure tactics. He mainly uses logic to communicate with us. Only when it did not work out or we could not come to consensus, he would use assertive influence tactics.

Some interviewees also pointed out that “people who have strong position power seldom use the relationship-based strategy” because when a relationship has been built over time, superiors do not need to nag at them when making requests.

Personal power and influence strategies. The same group of interviewees also commented on the relationship between personal power and persuasive strategy. One manager stated that “people who have personal power but lower position power tend to rely on their own experience and expertise to persuade others to accept their ideas.” Another also said:

If he is an expert, I have already accepted him psychologically. (When he asks me to do something), what he has to do is to tell me the job content.

This is consistent with our hypothesis. Some managers (24 per cent) also mentioned the relationship-based strategy, believing that managers normally use logic and reasoning, but “if he wants to motivate me to do the job, he would also use relationship-based tactics.” For instance, one indicated that his superior would also explain to him “this task is very important and you are the most appropriate person to do the job [. . .]”

The interviewee further suggested that “if you do not have strong personal power, then you have to add more to other aspects; you have to invest in personal connections.” This finding explained the positive result found in the survey results. A few managers also indicated that they seldom used assertive tactics because they did not want to show their authority. Some also suggested that “persuasive and relationship-based strategies

CMS 7,1

will do the job.” This explains the result of hypothesis and why there is negative relationship between personal power and the assertive influence strategy.

Relational power and influence strategies. When a leader has strong relational power, the situation becomes more complex. Based on our interview data, this complexity can be explained using a three-tier social perception process (Robbins, 1996, see Figure 2), which is illustrated with examples from the interviews:

(1) Self-perception: an agent’s perception on the quality of relationship with his/her subordinates. As one informant stated:

With those who have poor relationships with their subordinates but strong position power [. . .] they might think that whatever they say, the follower may not listen to them, so they would just directly assign the task to the subordinates.

(2) Objective perception: an agent’s perception about the target’s potential reaction. A senior manager who had similar ranking with her direct superior and two shareholders said:

At times, we may not have similar ideas on some projects. But if they put pressure on me, I can reject them. I can use my own solution to do the job and they cannot do anything to me. Therefore, they normally use relationship-based tactics. We can have some room for discussion and then come to consensus, and work towards our mutual goal.

(3) Situational perception: an agent’s perception about the organizational situations such as the resources he/she holds. One administrative manager suggested that, “if I had the budgets, I would not need to use assertive tactics.”

Unlike position power which relies on authority or personal power which is based on expertise or knowledge, relational power operates in a very unpredictable way because of the different perceptions the agent may have toward a particular target or an organizational situation. As one informant suggested, “He may use a persuasive, assertive or relationship-based strategy, depending on whether the relation between his boss and oneself is strong or weak, when and how to use it.”

Discussion Power theories were generated in the West (especially in the USA) and then applied and empirically tested in the rest of the world. Though work relationships are important for understanding behavior in organizations is not new, research has not always progressed in ways that fully captured the relational linkage between individuals (Ferris et al., 2009). We believe that lessons from the Chinese experience may also provide useful insight or guidance (Tsui, 2009) in understanding organizational behavior. The findings of the study shall strengthen our understanding on how the indigenously-developed construct-guanxi integrating with the Western developed power-dependency theory can also shape our understanding on power and influence in organizations.

This study contributes to the power literature by demonstrating the existence of relational power, and also adds knowledge to the influence behavior literature by relating power sources with different types of influence strategies. Our study also shows the dynamics of guanxi, particular on the affection-based relationship between an agent and a target, thus helping the Westerners better understand work relationships in China

Understanding power dynamics

and understand why being able to develop relational power is effective here. Our findings show that relational power, as a distinctive power source, not only affects managerial choices on the use of influence strategies, but also the effectiveness of various influence strategies on the target person. Relational power exists as a standalone but equally important source as that of position and personal power, demonstrating positive or negative linkage to different types of strategies as we hypothesized.

Managerial implications The findings of the study provide implications in two ways. First, it deals with the existence of relational power. Managers should fully recognize the effect of relational power and its relationship with different types of influence strategies, and conscientiously develop and utilize this power. Second, managers need to first discern the power source they own and then employ appropriate influencing strategies.

Relational power is very different from position or personal power because this power is about “power-dependence” (Emerson, 1962). This power needs to be “interactive.” Unless the two parties are willing to make the effort to develop a good relationship, it will never become a power. However, unlike the other sources of power, the good news is that, relational power can be built through open communication and frequent interactions and connection between members. As pointed out by Vecchio (2007), subordinates can readily agree on who is relatively in or out with the boss, and likewise, the boss can quickly list which employees are currently in or out of favor. Therefore, in order to develop quality relationships effectively, the leader must take the initiative to develop a good relationship with his subordinates in an early stage. However, this is not about “manipulation”; but “sincerity” – the leader must have the true intention to “enter and stay” in the relationship and has the best interests of his/her subordinates at heart (Chen and Chen, 2004).

Like force, relational power by itself is neutral. When it is used for good purposes, it is more likely to generate positive results; however, if it is used with bad intentions, relational power can generate more harm than the other two types of power sources because of the involvement of emotions. Equally important is to be aware of the

Figure 2. Social perceptions between power sources and influence strategies

Social perceptions

Self perception

Objective perception

Situational perception

Assertive influence strategy

Persuasive influence strategy

Relationship-based influence strategy

Position power

Personal power

Relational power

Sources of power Influence strategies

process of recognitionÆ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ

CMS 7,1

possible damage relational power could do to the organization. Oftentimes, people do things not because of the influence of position or personal power, but relational power. They do so out of personal obligations, or face (which implies reciprocity) even when rationally they may not feel most comfortable. Therefore, leaders need to exercise self-control not to exercise relational power for immoral purposes.

Directions for future research and limitations Future studies are needed to enhance our understanding of relational power. There are still several unanswered questions in the study. First, it deals with the domains of the relational power. Drawing on the literature review and our own findings, we believe that relational power, like position or personal power can also be divided into several sub-power bases. Future studies can examine whether our assumption is true and test the effect of various relational power bases on different organizational outcomes.

Future studies should put more efforts to examine the effect of relational power in different cultures. We have already started exploring the extent to which our model applies to other non-Chinese societies. The fact that guanxi is frequently mentioned in the popular media and academic publications in the West (Chen and Chen, 2004) also urges us to understand the impact of relational power since it is also possible for Westerners to be influenced by Chinese practices or even to assimilate these values (Ralston et al., 1997).

Our study has obvious limitations. Although the new scale of relational power was carefully designed, developed and tested, some of the items can still be further fine-tuned. In our survey study, we only gathered the responses from subordinates though we have minimized the common method effect. Future researchers should consider using multiple sources by also including leaders’ reports.

Conclusion Many researchers have recognized the importance of the Chinese notion of guanxi. Smith (2010) also pointed out in the latest Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology that, although guanxi relationship is an important attribute of Chinese cultures, this notion is prevalent in other collectivist, high power distance cultures. However, this is the first empirical study that has examined guanxi as a power force and incorporated it into the power typology. The insights of guanxi dynamics would encourage managers in other cultures to better understand the nature of power and be more sensitive about relational power. As more companies go global, managers and employees must be able to work effectively together despite the differences in cultures, customs, values, beliefs and practices (Schmidt et al., 2007). We hope this modest study will stimulate interest in this important topic, offering our research colleagues a new area of research, and managers some useful knowledge in their endeavor in becoming globally effective.

References

Bass, B.M. (1960), Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational Behavior, Harper, New York, NY.

Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Fit indexes, lag-range multipliers, constraint changes and incomplete data in structural models”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 25, pp. 163-72.

Brislin, R. (1970), “Back-translation for cross-cultural research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 185-216.

Understanding power dynamics

Chen, X.P. and Chen, C.C. (2004), “On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: a process model of guanxi development”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 305-24.

Chen, Y., Friedman, R., Yu, E. and Sun, F. (2009), “Examining the positive and negative effects of guanxi practices: a multi-level analysis of guanxi practices and procedural justice perceptions”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, available at: www.springerlink.com/ content/r383441n34204633/ (accessed 1 January 2010).

Cheung, M.F.Y., Wu, W.P., Chan, A.K.K. and Wong, M.M.L. (2009), “Superior-subordinate guanxi and employee work outcomes: the mediating role of job satisfaction”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88, pp. 77-89.

Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Emerson, R.M. (1962), “Power-dependence relations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 31-41.

Emerson, R.M. (1976), “Social exchange theory”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2, pp. 335-62.

Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement and their Correlates, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Feldman, D.C. (1981), “The multiple socialization of organization members”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, pp. 309-18.

Ferrin, D.L., Dirks, K.T. and Shah, P.P. (2006), “Direct and indirect effects of third-party relationships on interpersonal trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 870-83.

Ferris, G.R., Liden, R.C., Munyon, T.K., Summers, K.J., Basik, J. and Buckley, M.R. (2009), “Relationships at work: toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35, pp. 1379-403.

Finkelstein, S. (1992), “Power in top management teams: dimensions, measurement, and validation”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 505-38.

French, J.R.P. and Raven, B. (1959), “The bases of social power”, in Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (Eds), Group Dynamics, Harper & Row, New York, NY, pp. 150-67.

Fu, P.P., Tsui, A.S. and Dess, G.G. (2006), “The dynamics of guanxi in Chinese hightech firms: implications for knowledge management and decision making”, Management International Review, Vol. 46, pp. 1-29.

Fu, P.P., Kennedy, J.K., Tata, J., Yukl, G., Bond, M.H., Peng, T.K., Srinivas, E.S., Howell, J.P., Prieto, L. and Koopman, P. (2004), “The impact of societal cultural values and individual social beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of managerial influence strategies: a meso approach”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 284-305.

Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 219-47.

Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (1990), “Relationships between subordinate perceptions of supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power”, Human Relations, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 221-37.

Kenrick, D.T., Neuberg, S.L. and Cialdini, R.B. (2007), Social Psychology: Goals to Action, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kotter, J.P. (1985), Power and Influence: Beyond Formal Authority, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Krippendorff, K. (2004), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

CMS 7,1

Law, K.S., Wong, C.S., Wang, D. and Wang, L. (2000), “Effect of supervisor-subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11, pp. 751-65.

Liden, R.C. and Maslyn, J.M. (1998), “Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through scale development”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24, pp. 43-72.

Nesler, M.S., Aguinis, H., Quigley, B.M., Lee, S.J. and Tedescgum, 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, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 750-69.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.

Rahim, M.A. (2009), “Bases of leader power and effectiveness”, in Tjosvold, D. and Wisse, B. (Eds), Power and Interdependence in Organizations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 224-43.

Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Yu, K.C. (1997), “The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan and China”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 177-208.

Raven, B., Schwarzwald, J. and Koslowsky, M. (1998), “Conceptualizing and measuring a power interaction model of interpersonal influence”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 307-32.

Raven, B.H. (2008), “The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence”, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Ringer, R.C. and Boss, R.W. (2000), “Hospital professionals’ use of upward influence”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 92-108.

Robbins, S.P. (1996), Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Schaffer, B.S. and Riordan, C.M. (2003), “A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: a best practices approach”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 6, pp. 169-215.

Schmidt, W.V., Conaway, R.N., Easton, S.S. and Wardrope, W.J. (2007), Communicating Globally: Intercultural Communication and International Business, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Shang, Y.F., Fu, P.P. and Chong, M.P.M. (2012), “Relational power in the Chinese context”, in Huang, X. and Bond, M. (Eds), The Handbook of Chinese Organizational Behavior: Integrating Theory, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 436-48.

Smith, P.B. (2010), “On the distinctiveness of Chinese psychology: or are we all Chinese?”, in Bond, M.H. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 699-710.

Smith, P.B., Misumi, J., Tayeb, M., Peterson, M. and Bond, M.H. (1989), “On the generality of leadership style measures across cultures”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 97-109.

Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2002), “Relative power and influence strategy: the effects of agent/target organizational power on superiors’ choices of influence strategies”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 167-79.

Steensma, H. and van Milligen, F. (2003), “Bases of power, procedural justice and outcomes of mergers: the push and pull factors of influence tactics”, Journal of Collective Negotiations (formerly Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector), Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 113-34.

Understanding power dynamics

Tsui, A.S. (2009), “Editor’s introduction-autonomy of inquiry: shaping the future of emerging scientific communities”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-14.

Tucker, L.R. and Lewis, C. (1973), “A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis”, Psychometrika, Vol. 38, pp. 1-10.

van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., Blaauw, E. and Vermunt, R. (1999), “Relational considerations in the use of influence tactics”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 806-19.

Vecchio, R.P. (2007), “Are you in or out with your boss?”, in Vecchio, R.P. (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power and Influence in Organizations, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, pp. 255-8.

Yukl, G. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Yukl, G. and Falbe, C.M. (1991), “Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 416-23.