National Power

NINTH EDITION

MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR Leading Human Resources

Paul Hersey

Center f or L eadership Studies Escondido, California

Kenneth H. Blanchard

Th e Ken Blanchard Companies, Inc. Escondido, California

Dewey E. Johnson

Sid Craig School of Business California State Univ ersity, Fresno

Fresn o, California

PEARSON -PrE'nt icE' Hall

Upper Saddle River. N e w J e r s ey 07458

Library of Congress Cataloging·in·Publication Data Hersey, Paul.

Manage ment of organiza tio nal behavior: leadin g human resources I Paul Hersey, Kenneth H . Bla nchard, Dewey E. Johnson. - 9t h ed.

p. cm. Includes index. ISBN-13: 978-0- 13-144139-2 ISBN- IO: 0- 13-144139-6

1. Orga niza ti onal beha vior. 2. Manage me nt. 3. Leadership. I. Bla nchard , Ken neth H . II. Johnson, Dewey E. III. litle.

HD58.7.H472oo8 658 .4 - dc22 2007019676

Editor in Chief: Dav id Parker Acquisitions Editor: Mike Ablassmeir Product Development Manager: Ashley Sant ora Project Manager, Editorial: Cla udi a Fernandes Editorial Assistant: Kriste n Va rin a Marketing Manager: Jodi Basse tt Marketing Assistant: Ian G old Associate Managing Editor: R enata But era Permissions Project Manager: Charl es Mor ri s Senior Operations Supervisor: Arnold Vila Operations Specialist: Michelle Kl e in Senior Art Director: Jane t Slowik Creative Director Central Design: Ja yne Conte Cover Design: Bruce Ke nse laar Composition: Ap ta ra, In c. Full·Service Project Management: Penny Wa lker, Ap tara, Inc. PrinterlBinder: Courie rfWestford Typeface: 10/12 Times Ten Roman

Credits and acknowledgm ents borrowed from other sources an d rep roduce d, with permission, in this textbook appear on ap propriate page wi thin text.

Copyright © 2008, 2001 by Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458. Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. Printed in th e Unite d Sta tes of A merica. This publi cation is protected by Copyright and permission should be obtained from the publis her and the Center for Leadership Studies, Esco ndido, CA 92025, pri or to any prohibited re produ ction, storage in a retrieval system, or transm ission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanica l, photocopying, rec ording, or likewise. For informatio n regarding permission(s), write to: Rights and Permissions De partment.

Situational Leade rship@ is a registe red tr ademark of the Cente r for Leadership Slud ies. Pearson Prentice HalJTM is a tradema rk of P earson E ducation, Inc. Pearson® is a registere d trademark of Pearson pIc. Prentice Hall® is a registe re d trademark of Pearson Education, Inc.

Pearson Education LTD. Pea rson Education Singapore, Pte. Ltd Pearson Education, Canada, Ltd Pearson Education- Japan

PEARSON -Prpnticp Hall

Pearson Ed ucation Austr alia PTY, Limited Pearso n Education Nor th A sia Ltd Pearson Educaci6n de Mexico, S.A. de C. V. Pearson Education Malaysia, P te. Ltd.

10987 654 32 1

ISBN-1 3: 978-0-13-144139-2

ISBN-l O: 0-13-144139-6

To

RALPH E. HERSEY, SR., a retired telephone pioneer with more than 50 patents for Bell Laboratories, whose work made direct dialing a reality. In looking back over his 39 years of work with the telephone industry, he once commented that of all his contributions, the most rewarding aspect to him personally was that he became known as a developer of people.

and

the REAR ADMIRAL THEODORE BLANCHARD, USNR,formernaval officer who was decorated with two Silver Stars, the Bronze Star, the Presi- dential Citation, and a Navy Unit Commendation for his courageous and competent World War II leadership in the Pacific. People who worked for him over the years always described him as an inspirational, dedicated, and caring leader who always fought for his people and the "underdog," whether in peace or war.

and

DEWEY EMANUAEL JOHNSON, entrepreneur, small-business owner, farmer, and community leader. He was known for his selfless dedication to others. He could always be counted on to give personal leadership and finan- cial support to business and civic organizations.

CHAPTERS

SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIp@, PERCEPTION, AND THE

IMPACT OF POWER ~

T he concepts of leadership and power have genera ted lively interest, debate, and oc-casionally confusion throughout the evolution of management thought. In fact , power is closely related to leadership, for power is one of the means by which a leader influences the behavior of followers.! Given this integra l relationship between leader- ship and power, leaders must not only assess the ir leader behavior in order to und er- stand how they actually influence other people, but they must also examine their possession and use of power2

POWER DEFINED

We earlier defined leadership as an attempt to influence another individual or group and co ncluded that leadership is an influ ence process. Power is influence potentiai - the resource that enables a leader to gain compliance or commitment from others. Despite its critical importance, power is a subj ec t that is often avoided , for power can have an unpl easa nt side, and many people may want to wish it away and pretend it is not th ere. But power is a real-world issue. Leaders who understand and know how to use power are more effective than those who do not or will not use power. To successfully influ- ence the behavior of others, the leader shou ld understand the impact of power on the various leadership styles. In today's world , man y sources of power within organi zations have been legislated , negotiated , or administered away. Leaders now have less of some types of power to draw from, so it is even more important to effectively use what is available. Because power bases drive leadership s!yles, using them appropriately can enhance your effectiveness as a leader. 3

[n spite of the widespread usage of the term power in management literature, there are many definitions4 James Hillman reports th a t power's "rather innocent definition is simply the agency to act, to do, to be, coming from the Latin potere, to be able ... power can be defined as sheer potency or potentiality, not the doing, but the capacity to do."s David C. McClelland and David H . Burnham have defined power as "influenci ng ot hers.,,6 John B. Miner defined power as "t he ability to induce a person to do some- thing he or she would not otherwise have done.,,7 Miner goes on to write, "Influence is a broader concept, referring to anything a person does to alter the behavior, attitudes, values, feelings, and such of another person ... Power is thus one form of influence.',R Stephen P. Robbins suggests the follo wi ng :

CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership®, P erce ption, and the Impact of Power 159

Power refers to a capacity that A has to influence the behavior of B, so that B does some thing that he or she would not otherwise do. This definition impli es (1) a potential that need not be ac tu ali zed to be effective, (2) a dependence re- lationship, and (3) that B has some discretion over his or he r own behavior9

While each of th es e definiti ons ca n be accurate, we will use Rogers's simpl e de- finition of power as " the potenti al for influence.',l0 Thus, power is a re so urce that mayor may not be use d. The use of power resulting in a change in th e probab ility that a person or group will adopt the desired behavioral change is defined as "influ ence." Accepting R ogers's definition , we make the followin g distinction between leader- ship and power. As was suggested in chapter 4, leadersh ip is defin ed as th e process of influencing the activities of a n individual or a group in e ffort s toward accom- pli shing a goal in a give n situation. Th e refo re, lead ership is a ny attempt to influ ence, and power is a lea der's infillence potential. It is the resource that enables a leade r to influence.

POSITION POWER AND PERSONAL POWER

One of the characteristics of leadership is that leaders exercise power. Amitai Etzioni di scussed the difference between position power and personal powe r. His distincti on resulted from his concept of power as tb e a bility to induce or influence behavior. H e claimed th at powe r is derive d from an organizational office, personal influence, or both. Individu als who are able to induce other individu als to do a certain job beca use of their position in the organization are considered to h ave position power; individu als who derive th eir power from their followers are considered to have personal power. Some individu als can have both positi on power and persona l power. ll

Where do managers get th e position powe r that is availab le to them ? Although E tzioni would argue that it comes from the organizational office of a manage r, we feel it comes from above and , th erefo re, is not inh erent in the office. Man agers oc- cupying positi ons in an organiza ti on may have more or less position power than their predecessors or someone e lse in a similar position in th e same organiza tion. Position power is th e extent to which those people to whom managers report are willing to delegate au thority and responsibility down to them. So position power tends to flow down in an organization; it is not a matter of the office's havin g power. This is not to say th at leade rs do not have any impact on how much position power they accrue. Th ey certa inly do. The confidence and trust they deve lop with the people above them will often determin e th e willingness of upp er man agement to delegate down to th em. And r emember, wh a teve r power is del ega ted do wnward can be taken back. We hav e a ll seen this occur wh e n managers still hav e th e same re spons ibiliti es, but their authority (to distribute rew ards an d sanctions) to get the job done h as been taken away.

"Commitm en t is nice, but doses of compliance may be necessary."

- t\1ichael Beer, Harvard Business Review

160 CHAPTER 8 • Situational LeaderSh ip®, Perception , and the Impact of Power

Persollal power is the extent to which followers respect, feel good about, and are committed to their leader and to which they see their own goals as being sa tisfi ed by the goa ls of th eir leader. In other words, persona l power is the extent to which people are willing to follow a leader. As a result , personal power in an organization a l setting comes from below - from the fo ll owers - and so flows up in an organization . 11lUS, we must be careful when we say that some lea ders are charismatic or have personal power that flows from them. Personal power is not inherent in the lea der. If it were, managers with person a l power could tak e over any department and have the same commitment and rapport th ey had in their last department. We know that they can 't. Although man- agers certainly can influence the amount of personal power th ey have by th e way they treat their people, it is a subjective and volatile kind of power. It can be ta ken away rapidly by fo ll owers. Make a few dramatic mistakes and see how many peopl e are will- ing to follow. Personal power is a day-to-day phenomenon; it can be earned and it can be taken away.

"The first duty of a leader is to ma ke himself be loved without courting love. To be loved withou t 'playing up' to anyone - even to him se lf."

-Andre Malraux

"Dignity does not come in possessing honors, but in deserving them."

-Aristotle

Etzioni suggested that the be st situation for leaders is wh en they have both per- sonal power and position power. But in some cases it is not possible to build a relation- ship on both. Th en the question becomes whether it is more important to have pe rsonal power or position power. Happin ess and human relations have been culturally rein- forced over the past several decades. With this emphasis, most people would pick per- sonal power as being the most important , but there is another side to this coin.

In his 16th-century treatise Th e Prillce, Machia velli presented an interestin g view- point when he raised the question of whether it is better to have a relati onship based on love (personal power) or fear (position power) n Machiavelli contended , as did Etzioni, that it is best to be both loved and feared. If, however, one cannot have both, he suggested that a relationship based on love alone tends to be volatile, short lived, and easily term inated when ther e is no fear of retaliation. On the other hand, a rela- tion ship base d on rear tends to be longer lasting because the individual must be ready to incur the sanction (pay the price) before termi n a ting the re lationsh ip. Thi s is a diffi- cult concept for many people to accept. O ne of the most difficult roles for leaders - whether they be a supervisor, teacher, or parent-is disciplining someone about whom they care. Yet to be effective at enh ancing others ' growth and development , leaders sometimes have to sacrifice short-term friendship for long-term respect. Machiavelli warned, however, that one should be careful that this fear (amount of posi tion power)

CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership® , P e rception, and the Impact of Power 161

does not lead to hatred. Hatred often evokes overt beh avior in terms of retali atio n, un- dermining, and a ttempts to overthrow.

In summary, pos ition power can be thought of as th e auth ority, which is de lega ted down , to use rewards and sanct io ns. Perso nal power is the cohesiveness, commitment, and rapport between leaders and followers. It is also affected by the extent to whi ch fol- lowers see their own goals as being the same, similar to, or at least dependent on th e ac- complishment of the leader's goals.

Although personal and position power are distinct , they are an interacting influ- ence system. Often, followers are affected by their p erceptions of both the leader's abil- ity to provide rewa rds, punishments, and sa nctions and the leader 's ability to influence up the organization. The extent to which people above you in the organization are will- ing to delega te positi on power is often depe ndent on their perception of the follow ers ' co mmitment to yo u. So it is not sufficie nt to have eithe r position or person al power alone-a leade r nee ds to work at gaining both.

SELLING WITHIN YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION

It is importan t to keep in mind that no matter where you are within your organization , you are trying to influence peopl eD If you are managing, you can use both position power and persona l power to influence the people who repor t directly to you. When at- tempting to influence your supervisor, senior executives, and associates, however, you must depend almost exclusively on personal power. There fore, you are selling. Wh en you have little or no position power, yo u must learn to develop rapport through per- sonal power because it is through this trust and confid ence that an effective relation- ship can be built. Figure 8- 1 illustrates this important idea. Keep in mind that power is a real-world issue. People who understand and know how to use power are more effective

FIGURE 8-1 Selling Up/Managing Down

Supervisor/Associates

Staff Members/Employees

Source: Adapt ed from Paul Hersey, Situational Selling (Escondido, CA: Ce nter for Leadership Studies, 1985), p. 15. R eprinted with permiss io n.

162 CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership®, Perception, and the Impact of Power

th an those who do not or will not. Recognition of the fact that all managers are in th e business of selling is an important aspect of this understanding.

ADDITIONAL BASES OF POWER

Although position power and personal power are important and useful concepts in ex- amining power, they are limited because they force you to divide "the pie" into just two pieces. R. L. Peabody named four categories of power on the basis of statements of questionnaire respondents in a police department, a welfare office, and an elementary schoo l: power of legitimacy (laws, rules, policies); of position; of competence (profes- siona l and technical expertise); and of person. 14

A study by A. C. Filley and A. J. Grimes identified 11 reasons an individual would seek a decision from another on various work-related matters in a professional organi- za lion. l s These reasons, from most frequently to least frequently mentioned, were:

• respon sibility and funclion (the person is responsible for the particular matter) • formal authority (the person is in a position to make decisions generally) • control of resources (the person controls money, information, and so on) • coll egial (a gro up of peers has the right to be consulted) • manipulation (the person can get the decision made in the manner desired) • default or avoidance (the person is ava il able and will deal with the problem) • bureaucratic rules (the rules specify th e person to consult) • traditional rules (custom, tradition, or sen iority specify the person to consult) • eq uity (the person is a fair decision maker) • frie ndship (the person is personally lik ed) • experlise (the person has superior knowledge of the subject)

Many other power base classification systems have been developed, but the frame- work devised by J. R. P. French and B. Rave n appears to be the most widely accepted1 6,17 They propose d that there are five bases of power: coercive power, expert power, le- gitimate power, refere nt power, and reward power. Later, Raven , collaborating with W. Kruglans ki, id entified a sixth power base- in formation power. I S Hersey and Walt Natemeyer modified so me of th e definitions of French, Raven , and Kruglanski and proposed a sevent h base of power - connection power. 19 We will define each of th ese seven power bases shortly.

THE PERCEPTION OF POWER

In the following discussion of power bases, we use the word perceived in such instances as "coercive power-the perceived ability to provide sanctions." We do this because the key issue in the concept of power is that it is not based on the reality of how much power th e manager has but rather on the followers' perception of that power. Truth and reality evoke no behavior. All behavior is based on people's perception and interpretation of truth and reality. For example, when a couple has a fight , it does not matter whether the cause was real or imagined - it was just as much of a fight. In a similar fashion , it is the perception oth ers hold about power that gives people the ability to influence.

We ope ra te using psychological maps. No matter how hard we work or how de- tail ed our psychological map, no matter how much information and specificity it con- tains, the map is not the actual territory. It is a mere representation. However, the closer

CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership® , P e rception, and the Impact of Powe r 163

we match our psychological map to the territory, the higher the probability th at we will be able to operate effectively within that territory.

GET THE INFORMATION OUT

People must not only perceive you as having power, but also see you as able and will- ing to use it. It 's not enough to have access to powe r; you have to let people kn ow you're willing to use it. Information has value only when you get it out to the end user in a fashion th at can be understood and accepted.

Consid er a father examining his son's report card and suffer in g heart palpitations as he sees a solid column of Ds. Outraged that a product of his genes could so disgrace the famil y, he con fronts his son: " D ave, this just won 't do. I can't tolerate these grades, and if you don't show me an immediate turnaround , you're going to be grounded!" Six weeks later, D ave brings home another report card. This time the Ds are written in red ink with exclam ation points. The fathe r says, "David , get in here ! I'm really upset, and now you have no choice at all. Hit those books hard or you 're definitely going to be grounded!"

Next time it 's the same excep t tha t the teacher h as added some pointed remarks about Dave's inattentive behavior in class. Dave 's fath er turns crimson, puts down the remote control and shouts, "David Ralph , this is it ... last chance city ... you're in real trouble with the old man now! " What has Dave learned? He has learned that his father, who has the ability to ground him , won 't use the power. Because of his father 's reluc- tance to follow through with his threate ned punishments, Dave knows that all he has to do is take heat for six minutes and he's off the hook for six weeks!

Power is a mailer of perception; use it or lose it!

PERFORMANCE READINESS , STYLES, AND POWER BASES

The relationship be tween performance readiness, leadership style, and the power base that drives th at style will now be expl ain ed.

COERCIVE POWER-THE PERCEIVED ABILITY TO PROVIDE SANCTIONS, PUNISHMENT, OR CONSEQUENCES FOR NOT PERFORMING

Followers at performance readiness level Rl need guid ance and direction. Too much supportive beh avior with peopl e at this level who are not currently performing may be perceived as p ermissive or as reward in g the lack of p e rformance. Without so me co- ercive power to drive the telling style (SI), attempts to influence will most likely be ineffective. Followers who don 't perform need to know th at if they do not respond ap- propriately, th ere may be some costs, sanctions, or other consequ ences. Th ese may take the form of a r eprimand , cut in pay, transfer, demotion, or even termination.

Managers often erode their coercive power by not following through. They may, for instance, have the ability to impose sa nctions but fo r one reason or another be unwill- ing to do so. TIlis reluctance to use sanctions can result in a loss of power. Anothe r way to erode coercive power is by not differentiating in the u se of sanctions on the basis of performance. If people feel that they will be punished regardless of performance, coer- cive power h as little impact on a leader's ability to influence them.

164 CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership®. Perception, and the Impact of Power

It is even possible to "talk" coercive power away. Let's sat that a manager begins a performance appraisal interview with a low performer by saying, "Now, look, both of us know that you've been here over 20 years and I can't fire you." In those few words, the manager has stripped away any coercive power the follower might have perceived.

CONNECTION POWER-THE PERCEIVED ASSOCIATION OF THE LEADER WITH INFLUENTIAL PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS

Connection power is an important driver for telling (Sl) and selling (S2) leadership styles. Usually, followers at Rl and R2 want to avoid the sanctions or gain the favor they associate with powerful connections. The important issue is not whether there is a real connection, but whether there is a perception of a real connection.

For example, a first-level supervisor may be regarded as having limited power. But if that supervisor is married to a relative of the company president, the perceived con- nection may provide added influence with others in the organization.

REWARD POWER-THE PERCEIVED ABILITY TO PROVIDE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE

Reward power is enhanced if managers are seen as having the ability to give appropri- ate rewards. Followers who are unable to currently perform a certain task but willing to make an effort (R2) are most likely to tryon new behaviors if they feel increases in per- formance will be rewarded. Rewards may include raises, bonuses, promotions, or trans- fers to more desirable positions. They may also include intangibles such as a pat on the back or feedback on accomplishment. In the final analysis, managers get what they re- ward. Therefore, it matters not only that the reward be offered in a timely manner, but also that the reward be perceived as such by the receiver. More pointedly, what consti- tutes a reward is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

A significant amount of reward power has been legislated, negotiated, and admin- istered away over the past few decades. This has resulted from companies endeavoring to avoid costly litigation when they are forced to downsize, restructure, and cut costs in response to the increasingly competitive global environment. Consequently, we often have to remind managers that reward power is tied to not only monetary rewards. This may require some creative thinking, but discovering what intangibles actually motivate followers can have an enormous impact on a leader's reward power. Managers, how- ever, often erode what little reward power they have by making promises they don't keep. Consider, for example, the following:

SALESPERSON: I did it! I made the 15 percent over quota with room to spare. When am I going to get that 10 percent bonus? SALES MANAGER: I'm sorry, but economic conditions are such that we' ll have to postpone it for a while. But don't worry, if you keep up the good work, I promise I'll make it up to you.

Other managers erode their reward power by "hoping for A but rewarding B.,,20 An example might be an organization that gives all salespeople a 10 percent cost-of- living adjustment and yet the difference between reward for average sales and out- standing sales is only 1 or 2 percent. In this case, "hanging around" for another year is significantly rewarded. This practice often results in high performers losing their moti- vation and commitment or looking outside the company for opportunities. A problem with power derived from rewards is that rewards will often run their course. The manager

CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership®, Perception, and the Impact of Power 165

will be left with an employee who is no longer motivated through the use of rewards and an organization that can no longer provide rewards.

LEGITIMATE POWER-THE PERCEPTION THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE LEADER TO MAKE DECISIONS BECAUSE OF TITLE, ROLE, OR POSITION IN THE ORGANIZATION

Legitimate power can be a useful driver for both the selling and participating leader- ship styles but ineffective for followers who are both unable and unwilling or insecure (Rl) who generally don't care whether someone's title is manager, regional manager, or vice president. Similarly, followers high in performance readiness (R4) are far less impressed with title or position than they are with expertise or information. However followers in the moderate ranges of performance readiness (R2 or R3) can often be in- fluenced if they feel it is appropriate for a person in that position with that title to make that decision. For example, a salesperson might comment to a peer about the depart- ment's recent reorganization: "Pat should be making those kinds of decisions ... that's what the sales manager gets paid to do."

REFERENT POWER-THE PERCEIVED ATTRACTIVENESS OF INTERACTING WITH THE LEADER

In attempting to influence people who are able but insecure or unwilling (R3), high- relationship behavior is necessary. If people have a confidence problem, the manager needs to provide encouragement. If they have a motivation problem, the manager needs to discuss and problem solve. In either case, if the manager has not taken time to build rapport, attempts to participate may be perceived as adversarial rather than help- ful. Confidence, trust, and rapport are important ingredients necessary for influencing people. If a follower feels that the manager will provide encouragement and help when it is needed, referent power can make an important difference in the success of the in- fluence attempt. Referent power is based on the manager's personal traits such as in- tegrity and honesty. A manager high in referent power is generally liked and admired by others because of personality. It is this liking for, admiration for, and identification with the manager that influences others.

"Men are more often bribed by their loyalties and ambitions than by money."

- Robert H . Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

INFORMATION POWER-THE PERCEIVED ACCESS TO, OR POSSESSION OF, USEFUL INFORMATION

The styles that tend to effectively influence followers at above-average performance readiness levels (R3 and R4) are participating (S3) and delegating (S4). Information power is most helpful in driving these styles. The use of this power source has grown sig- nificantly since the inception of the Internet. In fact, it has continued to grow in impor- tance as more data becomes available and accessible. Those who know how to access

166 CHAPTER 8 • Situational Lead e r s hip® , Perception , and the Impact of Power

information needed in a time ly mann er tend to be the ones tha t others seek ali t, and sharing that information provides an opportunity for those knowledge holders to influ- ence the behaviors of others.

Information power is based on perceived access to data. This is different from ex- pert power, which is the understanding of or ability to use data . For example, one stud y fo un d th at secretaries in a major corporate office h ad a significant amount of inform a- tion power but little expert power in some technica l areas. They were able to help ga in or prevent access to information but , with the excep tion of a few technical areas, had littl e expertise themselves.

EXPERT POWER-THE PERCEPTION THAT THE LEADER HAS RELEVANT EDUCATION , EXPERIENCE, AND EXPERTISE

Followers who are competent and confident require little direction or suppor tive be- havio r. They are able and willing to perform on their own. 111e driver for influenCing th ese followers is expert power. With followers who are able and confidently willing (R4) , leaders are more effective if they possess the expe rtise, skill , and knowledge th at followers respect and regard as important. An apt example is Al Smith, former govern or of New York state. When he was a freshm an legislator, he spent his nights st udying the New York state budget instead of attendin g th e ma ny social even ts. As Tom Peters, well- kn own auth or and commentator on the management scene, described it, "His matchless comman d of the fine print [of the budget] laun ched an extraordinary career.,m

IS THERE A BEST TYPE OF POWER?

The French and Raven initial classification system motivated a number of scholars to try to answer the fo llowing question: Given the wide variety of power bases available to th e leader, whi ch type of power s hould be emphasized in order to maximize e ffectiveness? In any attempt to answer this question , it is important to remember th e definition of effective ness. As stated in chapter 6, organ iza ti ona l effectiveness, as we ll as lea der effectiveness, is a function of both output variab les and int ervening vari ables.

K. R. Stud ent studied 40 producti on groups in two plant s of a company that manu- factured home appliances22 Employees rated the extent to which they compli ed with their foremen because of each of the five Fre nch and Raven power bases. Legitimate powe r was found to be the strongest reason for compliance, followed by expert power, reward power, referent power, and last , coercive power.

Student also related th e forem en 's power base use (as perceived by the work ers) to a number of meas ures of performance. He fou nd th at legitimate power, whi le most im - portant among the reasons for compli ance, was not related to th e performance of the work groups. Reward and coercive power were pos itive ly related to some performance meas ures (suggestions submitted, supply cost performance) but negatively r elated to ot he rs (ave rage earnings, mainten ance cost per formance). Expert and re fcren t power were sign ifican tly and positively re lated to fo ur and five measures of performance, re- spective ly, and thus e merged as the two most effective bases of supe rvisory power. Stu- dent explain ed these results by suggesting that expe rt and refe rent power are qualitatively different from legitimate, reward , and coercive power. Expert and re fe ren t power are considered idiosyncratic in charac ter and dependent on an individual's unique role be- havior, whereas legitimate, reward, and coe rcive power are organizationally determ ined

CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership@, Perception, and the Impact of Power 167

and designed to be equal for supervisors at the same hierarchical level. Implicit in Stu- dent's conclusions is th e contention that followers are more responsive to and satisfied with a leader whose int1uence attempts arc not based entirely on position-based power (that is, legitimate, reward, and coercive),

Similar results were obtained in a study by 1 G, Bachman, C G, Smith, and 1 A Slesinger.23 Data were obtained from 36 branch offices of a national sales organization, Each office was managed by a single office supervisor. Employees were asked to rank each of the five power bases according to the extent to which it was a reason for com- pliance. These results were then correlated with satisfaction and performance mea- sures. Legitimate and expert power again emerged as first and second in importance, followed by referent, reward , and coercive power, in that order.

In those offices in which referent and expert power predominated, performance and satisfaction were high. In those offices in which reward power was high, perfor- mance tended to be poor and there was marked dissatisfaction. Coercive and legiti- mate bases of power were associated with dissatisfaction, but they were unrelated to performance.

The findings of Student and Bacbman and others were included in a comparative study of five organizations by Bachman, D. G. Bowers, and P. M. Marcus.24 In addition to the appliance firm and the sales organization, other organizations examined were 12 liberal arts colleges, 40 agencies of a life insurance company, and 21 work groups of a large Midwestern utility company. A ranking procedure was used to ascertain the strength of the supervisors' power bases in the colleges and the utility company, while an independent rating procedure for each power base was used with the life insurance agencies.

Expert and legitimate power were again the most important reasons for complying with supervisors in all three organizations. Expert power was most important, and le- gitimate power, second, in the colleges and insurance agencies. The order was reversed in the utility company. Referent power was third in importance in the colleges, fourth in the insurance agencies, and fifth in the utility companies. Reward power was third in importance in the utility company and the agencies and fourth in the colleges. Finally, coercive power was least important in the colleges and the insurance agencies and fourth in the utility company.

Expert and referent power were again strongly and positively related to satisfac- tion in these three additional organizations, whereas reward and legitimate power were not strongly related to the satisfaction measures. Coercive power was consistently re- lated to dissatisfaction. Performance data were obtained from the.insurance agencies but not from the colleges or utility company. Expert and reward power were positively related to insurance agency performance measures, and coercive, legitimate, and refer- ent power yielded insignificant correlations.

1. M.lvancevich and 1. H. Donnelly studied salespersons' perceptions of their man- agers' power bases in 31 branches of a large firm that produces food products.25 The employees were asked to rank the power bases in order of importance for compliance. Expert power was most important, followed by legitimate, reward, referent, and coer- cive power. Referent and expert power were positively related to performance; reward, legitimate, and coercive power showed no relationship.

R.1. Burke and D. S. Wilcox conducted a study of leader power bases and follower satisfaction in six offices of a large public utility company.26 A one-to-five ranking method

168 CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership® , Perception, and the Impact of Power

FIGURS 8-2 l'Iie 1mpact of Power Sases at Various Levels-of Perio';;;""a"'n"'c"'e --"'1 ReaCfiness

High Performance Readiness

Expert Information Referent Legitimate Reward Connection Coercive

Low Performance Readiness

was used. Expert power emerged as most important, followed by legitimate, coercive, referent, and reward power. Referent and expert power were associated with greatest satisfaction, legitimate and reward power were intermediate, and coercive power was associated with least satisfaction.

In summarizing a review of the most important research relating supervisory power bases to follower satisfaction and performance, Walter Natemeyer made the following general conclusion: Although expert and legitimate power bases appear to be the most important reason for compliance, and expert and referent power bases tend to be often strongly and consistently related to follower performance and satisfaction measures, the results are not clear enough to generalize about a best power base27 In fact , the results suggest that the appropriate power base is largely affected by situational variables. In other words, leaders may need various power bases, depending on the situation.

POWER BASES AND PERFORMANCE READINESS LEVEL

Hersey, Natemeyer, and Blanchard suggest that there is a direct relationship between the level of performance readiness of individuals and groups and the kind of power bases that have a high probability of gaining compliance from those people28 Situa- tional Leadership views performance readiness as the ability and willingness of indi- viduals or groups to take responsibility for directing their own behavior in a particular situation. Thus, it must be reemphasized that performance readiness is a task -specific concept and depends on what the leader is attempting to accomplish.

As people move from lower to higher levels of performance readiness, their com- petence and confidence to do things increase. The seven power bases appear to have Significant impact on the behavior of people at various levels of performance readiness, as seen in Figure 8-2.

INTEGRATING POWER BASES, PERFORMANCE READINESS LEVEL, AND LEADERSHIP STYLE THROUGH SITUATIONAL LEADERSHlp@

Situational Leadership@provides the context for understanding the potential impact of each power base. It is our contention that the performance readiness of the follower not only dictates which style of leadership will have the highest probability of success,

CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership®, Perception, and the Impact of Power 169

FIGURE 8--3 Power Bases Necessary to Influence People's Behavior at Various Levels of Performance Readiness

Performance Readiness Level

High Moderate Low

R4 R3 R2 R1 Expert Referent Reward Coercive

Information Legitimate Connection

but also determines the power base that the leader should use in order to induce com- pliance or influence behavior to maximize performance.

THE SITUATIONAL USE OF POWER

Even if the leader is using the appropriate leadership style for a given performance readiness level, that style may not be maximizing the leader's probability of success if it does not reflect the appropriate power base. Therefore, just as an effective leader should vary leadership style according to the performance readiness level of the fol- lower, it is appropriate to vary the use of power in a similar manner. The power bases that may influence people's behavior at various levels of performance readiness are shown in Figure 8-3.

Figure 8- 3 shows a relationship only between power bases and performance readi- ness level. However, there also appears to be a direct relationship between the kind of power bases a person has and the corresponding leadership style that will be effective for that person in influencing the behavior of others at various performance readiness levels.

Coercive power. A follower low in performance readiness generally needs strong directive behavior in order to become productive. To engage effectively in this telling style CSI), the leader may have to use coercive power. The behavior of people at low levels of performance readiness CRI) seems to be generally influenced by the aware- ness that costs will be incurred if they do not learn and follow the rules of the game. Thus, sanctions - the perceived power to fire, transfer, demote, and so on-may be an important way that a leader can induce compliance from people who are unable and unwilling. The leader's coercive power may motivate the followers to avoid the punish- ment or "cost" by doing what the leader tells them to do.

Connection power. As a follower begins to move from performance readiness level RI to R2, directive behavior is still needed, but increases in supportive behavior are also important at this juncture. The telling (SI) and selling (S2) leadership styles ap- propriate for these levels of performance readiness may become more effective if the leader has connection power. The possession of this power base may induce compli- ance because a follower at these performance readiness levels tends to engage in be- haviors geared toward avoiding punishments or gaining rewards that are perceived to be available through the powerful connection.

Reward power. A follower at a low to moderate level of performance readiness often needs high amounts of supportive behavior and directive behavior CS2). This

170 CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership® , Perception, and the Impact of Power

selling style is often enhanced by reward power. Since individuals at this performance readiness level are willing to tryon new behavior, the leader needs to be perceived as having access to rewards in order to gain compliance and to reinforce growth in the de- sired direction.

Legitimate power. The leadership styles that tend to influence effectively those at both moderate levels of performance readiness (R2 and R3) are selling (S2) and partic- ipating (S3). Legitimate power seems to be helpful in the effective use of these styles. By the time a follower reaches these moderate levels of performance readiness, the power of the leader has become legitimized. That is, the leader is able to induce compliance or influence behavior by virtue of the leader's position in the organizational hierarchy.

Referent power. A follower at a moderate to high level of performance readiness (R3) tends to need little direction but still requires a high level of communication and support from the leader. This participating style (S3) may be more effectively utilized if the leader has referent power. This source of power is based on good personal relations with the follower. With people who are able but insecure or unwilling, this power base tends to be an important means of instilling confidence and providing encouragement, recognition, and other supportive behavior. When that occurs, followers will generally respond in a positive way, permitting the leader to influence them because they like, ad- mire, or identify with the leader.

Information power. The leadership styles that tend to motivate followers effec· tively at above-average performance readiness levels (R3 and R4) are participating (S3) and delegating (S4). Information power seems to be particularly helpful in using these two styles in that people at these levels of performance readiness look to the leader for information to maintain or improve performance. The transition from mod- erate to high performance readiness may in fact be facilitated if the follower knows that the leader is available to clarify or explain issues and provide access to pertinent data, reports, and correspondence when needed. Through this information power, the leader is able to influence people who are both willing and able.

Expert power. A follower who develops to a high level of performance readiness often requires little direction or support. This follower is able and willing (R4) to per- form the tasks required and tends to respond most readily to a delegating leadership style (S4) and through the leader's judicious use of expert power. Thus, a leader may gain respect from and influence most readily a person who has both competence and confidence by possessing expertise, skill, and knowledge that this follower recognizes as important.

Power bases can be very SUbjective. We can draw conclusions about which power base tends to be most effective with each performance readiness level. However, there may be more than one power base driving the influence behavior. An easy way to think about sources of power in terms of making diagnostic judgments is to draw a triangle, as shown in Figure 8-4, around the three power bases necessary to influence below- average, average, and above-average levels of performance readiness.

A way to examine the high-probability power base for a specific performance readiness level is to draw inverted triangles, as shown in Figure 8-5. Note that Rl and R4, the extreme performance readiness levels, include only two power bases instead of three.

CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadershlp@, Perception, and the Impact of Power 171

I FIGURE 8-4 Power Bases Necessary to Influence People at Various Readiness Levels

Performance Readiness Level

High (above average)

R4

Expert

Information

R3

Referent

Moderate (average)

I

Legitimate

DEVELOPING SOURCES OF POWER

R2

Reward

Low (below average)

Rl

Coercive

Connection

Although these seven power bases are potentially available to any leader as a means of influencing the behavior of others, it is important to note tbat there is significant vari- ance in the powers that leaders may actually possess. Some leaders have a great deal of power; others have very little. Part of the variance in actual power is due to the organi- zation and the leader's position in the organization (position power), and part is due to individual differences among the leaders themselves (personal power) , as shown in Figure 8-6.

The power bases that are most relevant at the below-average levels of performance readiness tend to be those that the organization or others can bestow on the leader. The power bases that influence people who are above average in performance readiness must, to a large degree, be earned from the people the leader is attempting to int1uence. Therefore, we suggest that position power and the phrase power over are most descrip- tive with coercive, connection, reward, and legitimate power bases, and we suggest that personal power and the phrase power with more accurately describe the effect on be- havior from referent, information, and expert power.

SOURCES OF POWER

Just as some leaders start off with little power and gradually build and develop various power sources, other leaders gradually let their power bases erode and lose them. Why? Before we answer that question, managers need to understand the sources of position and personal power.

FIGURE 8-5 Power Bases Necessary to Influence People's Behavior at Specific Levels of Performance Readiness

High Moderate Low

R4 R3 R2 Rl

Expert Referent Reward Coercive

Informa tion Legitimate Connection

172 CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership®. Perception, and the Impact of Power

, FIGURE 8-6 Summary of Relationships among Power Bases, Performance Readiness Level , and Leadership Style

Delegating Participating Selling Telling S4 S3

High

R4 R3 Expert Referent

Information '-v--------' Personal Power

"power with"

S2 Sl

Moderate Low

R2 Rl Reward Coercive

Legitimate Connection ,

Position Power "power over"

As we discussed earlier, position power can be thought of as the authority that is delegated down in an organization. Managers do, however, have some impact on how much position (coercive, connection, reward, and legitimate) power they get. The ex- tent to which they develop rapport, confidence, and trust between themselves and se- nior management will determine how willing those above them will be to delegate power. In that sense, position power is something that a manager has to earn on a day- to-day basis.

The same can be said about personal power, except that the personal power (re- ward, information, and expert) that managers possess depends on the confidence and trust those managers generate from the people they are attempting to influence. For example, people might think that some leaders have charisma and other leaders don't. Leaders don't have charisma; followers give leaders charisma. We have all seen that phenomenon with elected officials. They are often carried into office because of their charisma, but when their actions do not gain general approval, they may lose their charisma overnight. Again, this is not to say that managers do not have some impact on how much personal power they get, but it's something that they have to earn on a day- to-day basis.

Position power and personal power bases together constitute an interaction-influence system. That is, power does not develop in a vacuum. Each power base tends to affect each of the other power bases. Thus, the extent to which people are willing to grant personal power to a manager depends a great deal on their perception of a leader's ability to provide rewards, punishment, or sanctions (position power). At the same time, the willingness of managers above a leader to delegate position power is often determined by the extent to which they perceive that leader as being liked and re- spected and having information and expertise (personal power) with their people. Keep in mind that we did not say how much personal power or position power affects whether leaders will be delegated authority or treated with respect. As we have noted before, it is the perception that others have of those power bases that is crucial. So the key word, perhaps. in the whole area of the behavioral sciences is perception.

CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership®, Perception, and the Impact of Power 173

ERODING SOURCES OF POWER

Since lea ders have only a limite d amount of power available to them , one would hope that th ey would hold on to whatever p owe r bases they have. Yet some leaders who start off with significant power gradually lose th ei r power bases and let them erode. The key to avoiding such erosion is to use your power bases. For example, a leader could have a significant amount of coercive power but gradually lose it by threatening followers with some kind of punishment and not followin g through. In this context, people will start to think that th e leader really does not have any coercive power. Similarly, leaders can lose th eir reward power if everyone gets th e same reward whether they perform or not , or just because th ey have seniority in industry, or are older in the family. Some parents es ta bli sh age requirements when kids can get to do things. "When you're 13, you'll be able to stay out past 10 o'clock. When you 're 16, yo u'll be able to stay home alone ." The problem with using age as a factor in determining when people can do things is that all tbey have to do is ge t older. When age is used as the de te rmining factor, reward power as a pare nt or a leader is lost becau se what is happening is that people are ge tting re- wards for being older, not for being more ready to take responsibility.

Connecti on power can be eroded when people begin to see that the sponsor or connection does not make any disciplin ary int erventio ns or provide any favo rs or sa nctions. In other words, to be maintain ed , connection power needs occasional in - terventions from the sponsor. Similarly, managers can lose their legitimate power by not making decisions that people think they ought to mak e, given their position. Erosion of this power base can also occur if a manager continually makes decisions th at are not fruitful. After a while, their staff members will no longer look to them to make decisions e ven if th ey have the title of se nior research scientist or department manager.

This process also works with referent power. Wh en you give praise or recogn ition to th ose who are perfo rming and tbe same praise or recognition to those who are not pe rforming, yo u begin to erode your refe rent power. If people do not have to ea rn praise and recognition , then you no longer have referent powe r.

Leaders a lso have to be careful about eroding their information and expert powe r, particularly if they give away expertise and in fo rmation to people whose goals ar e not organizat ional goals. If you give away too much inform ati on and knowledge, eventually th ose people wi ll not need you. The only way you can get around this prOblem is to con - tinu ally develop new information and new expertise so they have to come back to the so urce.

If lea ders let their power bases erode, they will a lso reduce the effectiveness of th eir leadership attempts. For example, an effective te lling (SI) leadership style de- pends on having some coercive power. If leaders are not seen as being able to deliver punishments and sanctions, their use of that styl e is limited.

The same can be said about a selling (S2) style. Without some control over rewards, leade rs are seen as not being able to rein fo rce or co mpensate for increase d perfor- mance as people grow and develop their skills.

A participa ting (S3) style won't work if people don't like a nd respect a manager. Add iti onall y, if a manage r ha s let re wa rd power erode by not being particularly re- spo nsive to people, then a parti cipative, high-rel at ionship style is going to be see n not as a reward , but as a punishment. Suppose a manager has ignored a staff mem- ber for a long time then , suddenly, when that person's family life begin s to deteriorate,

174 CHAPTER 8 • Situational Leadership®, Perception, and the Impact of Power

the manager tries to comfort and console the staffer. Since the manager has eroded available referent power, these supportive leadership attempts are not seen as re- wards, but as sanctions and punishments. Time with the boss is not seen as a positive experience.

A manager who is supervising highly competent and motivated people needs to have some expert power to make any kind of significant intervention. If the manager has eroded information and expert power, the possibility of influencing these people in any significant way will be very limited.

WILLINGNESS TO TAKE A POWER ROLE

As we just noted, a person desiring a leadership role must also be willing to assume the responsibilities of that rol e. This means gaining and exercising power. Manag- ing, supervising, and leading are all influencing behaviors. If a person is unwilling or unable to exercise power, any attempt to manage, supervise, or lead is doomed to failure .

Katherine Benzinger provided some significant insights into the process of gaining and using power.29 We will spend the next few paragraphs summarizing her important contributions.

Benzinger defined power as "the ability to get your way.,,30 She noted that there are important differences between personal and organizational power. In the for - mer, a person has freedom of choice as far as who to influence and the size of the group is much smaller. In the latter, a person is not free to choose co-workers and supervisors, and there are many more people in the group. These differences are very significant, particularly in the way men and women approach these differences. Men, Benzinger observed, hav e be en trained since childhood-particularly in ath- letic groups - to develop trust and respect among fellow group members, even those they may personally dislike. Women, on the other hand, when confronted with an unpleasant situation, may choose either to avoid the threatening person or to accommodate that person. We have equated leadership with influence, but as Benzinger correctly concluded, accommodation does not influence. Therefore, "The first difference between personal and organizational power is: 'In seeking organiza- tional power, you must consciously try to build the trust and respect of your co-workers.",31

Benzinger suggested that women have a tendency to rely on experience: that is, to seek a family -sized group such as their own staff or peer group as a power base. Why? If they had control of their own staff, women believe, they would be perceived as com- petent and doing an effective job. But this scenario neglects contextual power-power external to one's immediate staff. Men, in Benzinger's view, assume that they have con- trol of their immediate staff and place their primary focus of power on persons exter- nal to their unit or department. This brings up the second difference between personal and organizational power. "The second difference is the need to develop influence with a large number of people.,,32

DO YOU WANT POWER?

Benzinger suggested that "If ... you want to climb a career ladder or influence your organization significantly, you must not only understand power, you must seek it actively and skillfully." In order "to protect yourself from frustration and burn-out , you