INTERPERSONAL POWER: LEADERSHIP, The Situational Perspective, Information power

<< up Decision GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE……….):GroProcess, Group Polarization

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN COURT >>

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Lesson 42

INTERPERSONAL POWER: LEADERSHIP

Aims:

· To understand main theories and types of leadership in the light of current research.

Objectives:

· To describe main theories of leadership.

· To discuss different types of leadership.

· To discuss recent research on gender and leadership.

Leadership

The leader of a group is the person who has the most impact on group behavior and beliefs. According to

Pescosolido (2001), the person who exerts the most influence and provides direction and energy to the

group is the leader this is the person who initiates action, gives orders, doles out rewards and punishments,

settles disputes between fellow members, and pushes and pulls the group toward its goals. Leaders may be

appointed, elected, or emerge over time. Many groups have only one leader; other groups have two or more

individuals with equally high levels of influence. Generally, groups tend to have multiple leaders as their

tasks become more diverse and complex.

Theories of leadership

The great-person theory

The situational perspective

The contingency theory

The great person theory

The great-person theory of leadership suggests that leaders possess particular characteristics. This

perspective on leadership maintains that some people are born to lead and others are born to follow.

According to this "trait" or "great person" perspective, some people are more clever or dominant than

others, so they rise to the top. This perspective is based on anthropological studies, that certain human

beings also have traits that make them "natural leaders." One such trait is intelligence. In some groups, the

leader is more intelligent than his or her followers (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Stogdill, 1948). Intellectually

gifted individuals often make very successful leaders.

In some studies of small groups, the person who talked most became the group leader (McGrath & Julian,

1963). Two other important traits are a need for achievement and being perceptive about other people's

needs. The best leaders seem to be people who are both strongly driven to succeed and skillful at

maintaining good relationships with their followers.

·Stogdill's early (1948) and later review (1974) of 163 studies from 1949-1970 showed that the success of

a leader is related to different traits:

Intelligent

Need for achievement & being perceptive about others' needs

Strong interpersonal skills

Confident

Optimistic

takes initiative in social situations

The Situational Perspective

A second perspective on leadership holds that the situation creates the leader. According to this

"situational" perspective, the person who becomes a group's leader is the one who happened to be in the

right place at the right time (Cooper & McGaugh, 1969). Adolph Hitler rose to power in pre-World War II

Germany because citizens who had suffered military and economic collapse wanted the most forceful

leader they could find. Groups frequently respond to crisis by choosing a leader who in other circumstances

179

Social Psychology (PSY403)

might be perceived as too authoritarian. Situational factors as trivial as who sits at the head of the table can

also affect who emerges as the group leader (Howells & Becker, 1962).

Leadership and talking:

Finally, Situational factors affect who talks the most in a group, which in turn affects who emerges as

leader. In one study of talkativeness and leadership, four college men held a group discussion (Bavelas,

Hastorf, Gross, & Kite, 1965). After the discussion had ended, the four men rated each other on traits like

leadership. The more the target man talked, the higher he was rated on leadership. In other words, a purely

situational factor, having nothing to do with the man's own personality, cast him in the role of group leader.

Communication patterns:

·Communication pattern is another situational factor that is important in making a person leader.

·Some groups (corporate & govt. Bureaucracies) have formal, established patterns of communications

·Several different possible

group

communication

Communication patterns:

networks: people occupying

central position emerge as

leaders than peripheral

The Contingency Theory of

Leadership

According to the contingency

Circle

W heel

All-channel

theory of leadership, the

group member who acts as

leader is contingent, or

dependent, on what the group

needs to accomplish (Fiedler,

1964, 1967, 1971, 1993).

According to the contingency

Y or Yoke

Kite

Star

theory of leadership, potential

leaders differ in whether they

are

task-oriented

Chain

relationship-oriented. Task-

oriented leaders concentrate

the group's energies on the

task at hand. They are impatient with and intolerant of group members who do not contribute to the group

effort. Relationship-oriented leaders, in contrast, concentrate the group's energies on maintaining cohesion,

harmony, and cooperation. They tend to get along well with subordinates, even those who may not be

contributing as much as they might to a particular group effort.

To identify these two leadership styles, Fiedler developed the Least Preferred Coworker Scale, which asks

leaders to evaluate the person in the group they like least. Fiedler found that leaders who evaluated their

least preferred coworker (LPC) very negatively were primarily motivated to attain successful task

performance and only secondarily motivated to seek good interpersonal relations among group members.

These low LPC leaders fit the mold of the task-oriented leader. In contrast, Fiedler found that leaders who

evaluated their LPCs positively were primarily motivated toward achieving satisfactory interpersonal

relationships among the group members and only secondarily motivated to successfully complete group

tasks. These high LPC leaders fit the mold of the relationship-oriented leader.

Predicting leader effectiveness

Who makes the best leader-someone who is task-oriented or someone who is relationship-oriented?

According to the contingency theory of leadership, "it all depends (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). In some

situations a task-oriented leader is more effective. In other situations, a relationship-oriented leader is more

effective. The determining factor is how much control the leader has. The leader's control depends on three

factors: the leader's relationship with the group; the degree to which the group's task is structured or well

180

Social Psychology (PSY403)

defined; and the leader's power to bestow rewards or punishments. In "favorable" situations where the

leader has good relations with subordinates, the task is well defined, and the leader's power is unquestioned,

a task-oriented leader is best for both group effectiveness and group members' satisfaction. Interestingly, a

task-oriented leader is also best for "unfavorable" situations, where the leader has very poor relations with

subordinates, the task is very unstructured, and the leader has little real power. A relationship-oriented

leader functions best, however, in the "mid-range" situations where leader-follower relations are

moderately good, the task is neither structured nor unstructured, and the leader's "legitimate" power is

moderate.

In one test of contingency theory, university administrators were identified as either task-oriented or

relationship-oriented (Chemers, Hays, Rhode-wait, & Wysocki, 1985). Their jobs wore classified as low,

moderate, or high in situational control.

Task-oriented leaders felt under the most stress when their leadership situation was uncertain--when they

held neither high nor low situational control.

Relationship-oriented leaders, in contrast, felt under the greatest stress when they had low rather than

moderate control over the situation. Task-oriented leaders also reported far more stress-related physical

illnesses (such as angina pectoris, colitis, and eczema) than did relationship-oriented leaders in moderate

situational control jobs, whereas relationship-oriented leaders reported more stress-related illnesses in low

situational control jobs.

Figure 1: Leadership style & perception of

situational stress

Transformational

and

Transactional

leadership

·House (1976), Burns (1978), Bass (1985)

linked the need of leaders and followers in an

Task orient ed

interactive process.

·Bass distinguished transformational and

Relationship-

orient ed

transactional behaviour

·Transformational leaders raises followers to

higher levels of morality and motivation

·Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was

Low

Moderat e

High

developed to measure transformational and

transactional leadership (Bass & Avolio,

1989)

Transformational Leaders Take Heroic and unconventional Actions

One of the earliest approaches to understanding leadership was to search for person; traits that caused some

people and not others to become leaders. Unfortunately, few leaf characteristics have been identified.

Leaders tend to be slightly more intelligent and taller than nonleaders, are more confident and adaptable,

and, not surprisingly, have a higher desire for power (Chemers et al., 2000). They also tend to be more

charismatic, a quality that has prompted a number of researchers to analyze the psychological dynamics of

charismatic or transformational leaders.

Transformational Leaders.

A transformational leader changes--or transforms--the outlook and behavior of followers, which allows

them to move beyond their self-interests for the good of the group or society (Bass, 1997). Some great

leaders of the twentieth century inspired tremendous changes in their respective societies by making

supporters believe that anything was possible if they collectively worked toward a common good (as

defined by the leader). The general view of transformational leaders is that they are "natural born"

influence agents who inspire high devotion, motivation, and productivity in group members. Because

181

Social Psychology (PSY403)

transformational leaders often use unconventional strategies that put them at risk, it is not uncommon for

them to face severe physical hardships--and even death--in moving the group to its goals.

Survey, interview, and experimental studies suggest there are at least three core components to

transformational leadership (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Rai & Sinha, 2000).

1. Ability to communicate a vision. A vision, which is a future ideal state embodying shared group values,

is the main technique that transformational leaders use to inspire followers. In communicating a vision,

leaders convey the expectation of high performance among followers and a confidence that they have the

ability to reach the vision.

2. Ability to implement a vision. Transformational leaders use a variety of techniques to implement a

vision, such as clarifying how task goals are to be accomplished, serving as a role model, providing

individualized support, and recognizing accomplishments.

3. Demonstrating a charismatic communication style. Transformational leaders have a captivating

communication style, in which they make direct eye contact, exhibit animated facial expressions, and use

powerful speech and nonverbal tactics.

Subtypes of Transformational leadership (as measured by MLQ)

·Charismatic/idealised influence:

role model, respect, trust

Transformational Leadership Model

·Inspirational motivation

Bass & Avolio (1994)

Provide meaning, team's spirit,

commitment to goals

Transf or mat iona l Leadership

·Intellectual stimulation

To be innovative and creative, no

Charisma

Individualised

Intellectual

Inspiration

Consideration

Stimulation

critique of mistakes

Transact ional Leadership

·Individual consideration

coach/mentor,

two-way

Management

Heightened

-by-exception

communication

motivation

to attain

Expected

designated

effort

Subtypes

Transactional

outcomes

Contingent

leadership

(extra effort)

reward

·Contingent

reward

for

performance

Expected

Performance

performance

reasonably effective

beyond

expectations

·Management

execption

(corrective)

active: monitor deviance

passive: if supervising large numbers of subordinate

·Laissez faire: non-transactional

decisions not made, action delayed

responsibility ignored

How do leaders wield power?

Winston Churchill exerted considerable interpersonal power in his letters to Roosevelt, in which Churchill

tried to bring the United States into the war on Britain's side. The letters contained six types of

interpersonal or social power that Churchill and other leaders use: expert power, referent power, informa-

tional power, legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power.

Six types of leaders' power

1. Expert power comes from having superior knowledge or ability. Modern subordinates in the

workplace often do not have access to the organization's plans and problems. Supervisors wield

expert power because they know details of the organization that subordinates do not know.

182

Social Psychology (PSY403)

2. Referent power involves emphasizing a common identity. Churchill always signed his letters to

Roosevelt "Former Naval Person." Although such a signature may seem odd for the leader of the

British Empire, it emphasized that Churchill and Roosevelt had both served their countries' navies.

Before becoming president, Franklin Roosevelt had served as U.S. Secretary of the Navy.

Similarly, modern workplace supervisors wield referent power over subordinates by making them

feel like part of a team. Referent power depends on building a social identity.

3. Information power consists of using arguments that are logically compelling. When Churchill

emphasized the danger to the United States should Britain be defeated, Roosevelt found the

argument very convincing.

4. Legitimate power is based on social norms and obligations, especially reciprocating when

someone else has done you a favor. Churchill first put Roosevelt in his debt by sharing military

secrets that were vital to U.S. interests. Then he emphasized that Britain was sacrificing to defend

the United States and other countries from subjugation.

5. Reward power comes from ability to grant rewards. Modern workplace supervisors also use

reward power selectively to accomplish their goals. The person who controls your promotions and

pay raises is in a good position to demand obedience.

6. Coercive power involves a threat of punishment.

When the types are used

The higher in the organization a leader was and the more people the leader supervised directly or indirectly,

the more the leader used threats of punishment, promises of rewards, and appeals to company loyalty to get

followers to obey. Power affects a leader's choice of influence tactics in settings as diverse as industry and

psychotherapy (Kipnis, 1984). Hitler and his Nazis came to rely almost exclusively on coercive power.

Different sex for different tasks?

Women are chosen as leaders by groups that are pursuing "feminine" tasks, whereas men are chosen as

leaders by groups that are pursuing "masculine" tasks (Eagly & Karau, 1991; Eagly et al., 1994). According

to the traditional stereotype, "feminine" tasks include deciding how to spend wedding money, sewing

buttons on a panel, and getting to know other group members by sharing feelings. "Masculine" tasks

include ranking the desirability of auto accessories, repairing a machine, and discussing how to survive in a

disaster. In other words, groups chose as leader a person who is expected to have expert power.

Unfortunately for qualified women, most business tasks seem "masculine." When businessmen and

businesswomen in the United States describe the ideal leader or the ideal manager, they typically describe

someone who acts like the male sex role stereotype ancL-not someone who acts like the female sex role

stereotype (Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986). Subordinates perceive women business executives, for

instance, as having more of all six types of power when the women wear a jacket and "look like a man"

than when they do not. According to traditional sex role stereotypes, acting like a man involves being

independent, masterful, competent, and assertive, whereas acting like a woman involves being friendly,

unselfish, and concerned about other people's feelings.

Reaction to women as leaders

In one study of how subordinates react to male versus female leaders, groups of four college students held a

discussion (Butler & Geis, 1990). The group's goal was to rank how important various items (for example,

food, a first-aid kit, water, a compass, rope, a star map) would be for surviving a spaceship crash on the

moon. Only two of the four group members (one man and one woman) were actual participants. The other

two group members were confederates who had studied all possible arguments for and against each

survival item. In some of the group discussions, either the male or the female confederate "took over" and

started leading the group. The "solo leader," whether male or female, directed the discussion and provided

183

Social Psychology (PSY403)

the final rationale for each group decision. The other confederate, although he or she offered good

suggestions, adopted the role of "follower." In other group discussions, the male and female confederates

both "took over." With their greater preparation, the confederates were easily able to direct and to dominate

the discussion and the group's decisions. When the discussion ended, the experimenters asked participants

to rate each other's competence. The participants did not display sex bias by rating female leaders as less

competent than male leaders. The experimenters suspected, though, that participants might be biased with-

out being aware of it. During the discussion, the experimenters placed observers behind one-way mirrors to

record the facial expressions of participants. According to these observers, whose ratings agreed with each

other, participants betrayed their true feelings by smiling and nodding agreement whenever the male

confederate "took charge" and by frowning and tightening their facial muscle whenever the female

confederate "took charge." Also, when participants were later asked to describe each other's personality

traits, both men and women described the female solo leader as bossy and excessively dominating. When

she talked more than everyone else and forced the group to be task-oriented, which she had to do to become

a solo leader, the female solo leader violated sex role expectations and "earned" the condemnation of other

group members.

Reading:

· Franzoi, S. (2003). Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 10.

Other Readings:

· Lord, C.G. (1997). Social Psychology. Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company. Chapter 8.

· David G. Myers, D. G. (2002). Social Psychology (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

· Taylor, S.E. (2006). Social Psychology (12th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

184

Table of Contents: