Leadership With Readings Notes

Leadership & Communications Notes LECTURE 2: POWER & INFLUENCE * Leadership: The process of influence over subordinates in order to achieve great results (Vroom and Jago, 2007) * Power: The ability of an agent to influence the attitudes or behaviours of one or more targets, based on various kinds of resources, at given point in time * Influence: The effect a person's actions have on the attitudes, values, beliefs, or actions of others, i.e., degree of actual change Responses (Yukl, 2012): * Commitment: The person is enthusiastic about the request and carries the task out * Compliance: The person goes along with the request grudgingly, putting in minimal effort * Resistance: The person is opposed to the request and tries to avoid it Types of Power (French & Raven, 1959): Formal Informal Reward: * Based on target's desire for valued resources or outcomes * Reliant on influencer's ability to provide benefits/rewards * Positive reinforcement * Utilisation of reward increases attraction to influencer Expert: * Based on target's respect for agent's expertise * Reliant on person's experience and knowledge * Derived from perception of skills rather than actual skills Coercive: * Based on target's fear of punishment * Reliant on fear * Positive punishment Information: * Based on target's change of attitude as a result of agent's information and logic * Reliant on influencer possessing data/ knowledge that is required by influencee Legitimate: * Based on target's felt obligation to comply with agent * Reliant on relative position in organisational hierarchy * Often encompasses both reward and coercive power * Power stems from formal authority implicit agreements between managers and followers * Most effective when members: - Identify with organisations - Have internalised values to obey authority, respect for law and tradition - Believe leader is legitimate authority figure Referent: * Based on target's desire to maintain a good relationship (because of agent's attractive personal qualities) * Identification with influences (feeling of oneness) ---> stronger identification, more effective * Reliant on liking, admiration and identifications * Usually greater for friendly/attractive/ charming/trustworthy leader Leadership & Communications Notes Acquisition of Power: * Power of Talk (Tannen, 1995) - Linguistic Style: directness, pausing, word choice, use of jokes/stories/questions, apologies - Linguistic Style Influences: getting credit, confidence & boasting, asking questions Influence Tactics (Yukl & Tracey, 1992) Corruption (Abuse of Power) * Power increases attempts to influence the less powerful (Kipnis, 1974) * Powerful individuals view the less powerful as objects of manipulation (Kipnis, 1974) * Attempts to create power - by investing in outside options - can lead to opportunistic behaviors in exchange relationships (Malhotra & Gino, 2012) * Can lead to workplace aggression: - Efforts by individuals to harm others with whom they work: 3 types expression of hostility, obstructionism, overt aggression (Neuman & Baron, 2005) - 6% of workers report having experienced some form of physical aggression and 41% report having experienced some form of psychological aggression at work (Schat et al, 2006) - Leads to | job satisfaction, | intent to turnover, and negative physical and mental health outcomes (Bowling & Beehr, 2006) - Milgram Experiment (1963) - 100% 300 volts, 65% 450 Volts * Sense of authority created through titles and appearance (e.g. security guard vs ordinary man obey simple orders, Bickman 1974; power and height subconsciously related) Readings: The Bases of Social Power (French & Raven, 1959) - Dyadic relationship between power and influence (2 POV): 1. What determines behaviour of person exerting power? 2. What are the reactions from participants - Power ---> Influence ---> Psychological change (i.e. changes in behaviour, opinions, attitudes, goals, needs values) - Influence can be through passive or overt movements - 5 Bases of Power (refer to table above ignore information power) - Difficult to distinguish between reward & coercive (withdrawal of punishment = reward?) ---> main difference reward power increase attraction, coercive decrease - Can be difficult to distinguish between referent and other types (i.e. if member is conforms to group norms because fears ridicule/exclusion ---> coercive power) Leadership & Communications Notes - Stronger basis of power --> greater the power The Power of Talk (Tannen, 1995) - Judgements about confidence inferred from the way people present themselves ---> often through talk - Language is learned social behaviour (how we talk/listen influenced by cultural exchange, i.e. pausing) ---> communicates ideas & negotiates relationships - Can make it difficult for women to obtain leadership positions as linguistic style (a person's characteristic speaking pattern: directness/indirectness; pacing/pausing; jokes/stories/apologies etc.) is different from men due to different linguistic norms - Women: use language to negotiate how close they are; men: use language to negotiate status in group (stems from childhood play, carries into workplace) ---> power dynamic vs rapport dynamic affects who gets credit - Getting Credit: I (men) vs We (women) ---> women less likely to 'blow own horn' - Confidence and boasting: Judge confidence through verbal behaviour, women less likely to be boastful (Heatherington et al: asked first years under undergrads to predict first year grades either in private of or in presence of researcher ---> women more likely to be predict lower in presence of researcher thus not lack of confidence but fear of being perceived as boastful) - Asking Questions: Asking too many question perceived as ignorant (women more likely to ask questions), perception can also be influenced by how question-asker is spoken to - Apologies: Women tend to apologise more frequently than men however use it as a way of expressing concern ---> may end up appearing weaker; men focus on status implications/power dynamic however common complaint about working for someone who refuses to admit fault - Feedback: Different linguistic styles (i.e. assumptions: lead with most important vs start with positive) leads to miscommunication - Compliments: Women more likely to compliment ---> ask for feedback expecting compliments; men avoid inviting feedback because might receive unwanted criticism (women minimise status difference; men maintain one-up position) - Ritual Opposition: Americans expect discussion of ideas to be ritual fight (i.e. an exploration through verbal opposition) however if not comfortable with style can seem like personal attack - Managing Up and Down: Men more likely to socialise upwards than women (lunch with superiors); women more careful with criticism when managing downwards - Indirectness: Varies between cultures; women especially indirect with giving criticism (fear of being too aggressive), men indirect when admitting fault - If managers aware of differences can develop adaptive & flexible approach to running meetings/mentoring/evaluating performance Leadership in Organisations: Power & Influence (Yukl, 2012) - Power: involves capacity of one party (agent) to influence another (target) static - Authority: right, prerogatives, obligations, duties associated with particular position - Outcomes of influence: (1) Commitment (external & internal agreement), (2) Compliance (external but not internal), (3) Resistance (neither external nor internal) - Influence Process (Kelman, 1958): Instrumental compliance (complies for reward/ avoid punishment), Internalisation (committed to support & implement idea), Personal Identification (adopts attitude of agent) - Position Power vs Personal Power (Bass 1960): legitimate, reward, coercive, information, ecological, referent, expert Leadership & Communications Notes - Power acquired through social exchange theory, strategic contingency theory (3 factors: problem skills, actor centrality and uniqueness of skill) - More power is not always better ---> can be detrimental i.e. corruption (more relevant for position power than personal power as personal power erodes quickly is leader acts against interest of follwers) - Influence Tactics (Yukl & Chavez, 2002): Impression Management (influence people to like); Political (influence organisational decisions to benefit individual/ group); Proactive Influence (immediate task objective) - Proactive Influence Tactics (Yukl et al, 1991): Rational persuasion, apprising, consultation, collaboration, ingratiation, personal appeals, exchange, coalition tactics, legitimating tactics, pressure Does Power Corrupt (Kipnis, 1974) - Found inequity in power is disruptive of harmonious social relations and drastically limits possibility that power holder can maintain close and friendly relationship with less powerful - Power increases likelihood individuals will attempt to manipulate & influence others - Control of power facilitates development of cognitive system which justifies use of power ---> more power, less desire for social relationship (view them as objects of manipulation) - Control of power triggers train of events 1. Control of power ---> increased temptation to influence others behaviour 2. As actual influence attempts increase, belief arises that behaviour of others is not self-controlled but caused by power holder 3. Leads to devaluation of their performance 4. Forces generated within more powerful to increase psychological distance - Reasons not clear but hypothesised that we desire to avoid people who appear not to be in control of own behaviour - Further explained by reciprocity ---> in order to justify inequitable relationship (more powerful puts in less, receives more), necessary for more powerful to restore cognitive balance by view less powerful as less worth - Two views of power: (1) control of resources (2) exercise of power ---> research suggests control of resources tempts power holder to manipulate others - However study does not consider resistance ---> 'no opportunity cost'; findings would not hold if resistance occurred as forces powerful to restructure their views of the needs and capabilities of less powerful Leadership & Communications Notes LECTURE 3: IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES Represent schemas specifying traits expected from leaders (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004) ---> a set of "naive" assumptions about leadership Reflects the structure & content of cognitive categories used to distinguish leaders from non-leaders How ILT Operates In order for a subordinate to believe that a leader is effective, their prototype of effective leadership has to match the leadership behaviour observed through prototype matching. Prototype and observation match --> perceives good leader --> positive rating behaviour * Develops early - Children have no problem drawing a "leader" - Children automatically infer leadership characteristics of social targets based on facial appearances (Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009; French parliamentary elections photos) * Relatively stable, even when the context changes (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004) * Influenced by culture (House et al., 2004) ---> highlighting a socially shared aspect of ILT - Investigated charismatic leadership, team-oriented leadership, participative leadership, humane-orientated leadership, autonomous leadership and selfprotective leadership - Major differences for example autonomous leadership most desirable in Eastern Europe and least in Latin America (individualism vs collectivism) Leadership & Communications Notes Implications for Female Leaders * Leadership generally associated with confident demeanor ---> agentic * Agentic behaviour is stereotypical of male behaviour but not female (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001) * Prototype matching: a subordinate would find females incongruent with their prototype of a leader ---> less effective * Female leaders try to act more agentic (e.g. Hilary Clinton) ---> perceived as aggressive/ controlling due to incongruence between observed behaviour and expected behaviour of gender role - Price Waterhouse v Ann Hopkins: 'interpersonal skills problems, not feminine enough' - Harvard Business School study (2003): Heidi/Howard - equally competent however Howard more appealing, Heidi selfish * Women must manage demeanour - balance both agentic signals (confident, strong, decisive) and communal ones (concern for others, warm, sympathetic) * Women in line jobs lower performance ratings than in staff jobs or men in both types of job; assertive women perceived less likeable/hireable (Lyness and Heilman, 2006) * Glass Ceiling Effect - 40% of university graduates in 1978 were female, less than 10% of top executives in 2010 were women (McKinsey, 2010) * However women have been shown to effective leaders: Addressing ILT * Awareness in male and female decision makers * Analysis of hiring and promotion practices * Development of gender-blind systems (as much as possible) * Acceptance of men in counter-stereotypical roles Readings: The Leadership Styles of Men and Women (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001) - Little consensus on whether men and women leadership styles differ - Theoretically men though be to be more agentic (assertive, controlling, confident), women more communal (concern with welfare of others) ---> leadership generally associated with agentic attributes - Female leaders' efforts to conform to both female gender role (communal) and leader role (agentic) can foster leadership styles different to men ---> difficulty due to incongruence between gender & leader roles - Creates prejudice in 2 forms (1) less favourable evaluation of women's potential for leadership because leadership ability is more stereotypic of men than women (2) Less favourable evaluation of actual leadership behaviour because agentic behaviour perceived less desirable from women ---> constrained in 2 directions 

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Leadership & Communications (MG100) Notes.