This week’s lesson caused me to reflect on two different leaders I have worked for and the ways that they each wielded power and influence tactics. The first leader, Andy, I perceived to be an outstanding supervisor, whom I enjoyed working for and would like to work for again. The second supervisor, Alan, I considered to be a poor leader whom I truly disliked.
Hughes et al. (1993) defined power as “the capacity to produce effects on others or the potential to influence others” and asserted that there are five unique sources of power: expert, referent, reward, coercive, and legitimate. Andy relied on expert power, which is the power that comes from being an expert in our field, and referent power, which is power that stems from relationships and admiration (Hughes et al., 1993). Andy was attentive to relationships with all of his subordinates and we got to know each other very well. He was an expert at his job, and he helped me develop in many ways.
Alan relied on legitimate, which is actual power granted by position, and coercive power, or the power to punish to motivate his subordinates (Hughes et al., 1993). Alan made no effort to forge a friendship, the only time I saw him was when he needed something done, often right away with no regard for my work schedule. He never expressly mentioned punishment, but if I disagreed with him he would raise his voice and give me a stern look.
These two leaders also differed mightily in their application of influence tactics, which are “a person’s actual behaviors designed to change another person’s attitudes, beliefs, values, or behaviors.” In situations where Andy wanted to influence me or others, he would often use rational persuasion, or the use of logical arguments, inspirational appeals, or a “proposal designed to arouse enthusiasm” (Hughes, et al., 1993, p. 24), or consultation, or the invitation to participate in the planning process. Andy led a motivated team, and as soon as a new project appeared he would need only to bring us together and explain it what he wanted. Like most people, I worked hard for Andy because I liked him and wanted to impress him.
If Alan wanted to exert influence on his subordinates, he used pressure tactics, which are “threats or persistent reminders”, or legitimizing tactics, which are “requests based on position or authority” (Hughes, et al., 1993, p. 24). Alan was a leader who could never remember what anyone was working on, so he would walk over to somebody’s desk and give them a huge assignment even though he had already demanded they stay late to finish a different project. When someone would object, he would remind them that employee reviews were coming up soon and that he expected people at our level to be able to perform. The individuals working for Alan did not feel appreciated and did not go above and beyond for him.
Alan and Andy represent two very different leadership styles. The methods with which each manager applied power and influence produced wholly different outcomes. Andy, who used primarily referent power and consultation, influenced followers to be highly motivated and loyal. Alan, who used mostly legitimate power and legitimizing tactics, influenced followers to be guarded, unhappy, and unmotivated.
References:
Hughes, Richard, et al. (1993). Power and influence In Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. Homewood, IL
Gregg Alison Reynolds says
You give a good view of the power taxonomy and how expert, referent, and legitimate power can be used in certain situations. It is clear which leader you preferred, as most of us would. It is clear also, that with certain types of power, there are clear connotations as to if that type is good, or if that type is bad. For example, coercive power would seem on its surface as always “bad”. Reward power might seem as always good.
The influence tactics you outline had considerable impact, no doubt. It is interesting to see the results of the tactics you outline. All leaders should consider carefully the repurcussions of their leadership (power in this case). I would hope you find a situation with a leader who’s style you find acceptable.
Again, good post.
Gregg Reynolds