Managers’ power and perception of their subordinates’ behaviour

Power dynamics: managers’ power and perception of their subordinates’ behaviour

Shailendra Singh


The study examined the extent of power and influence managers had over their subordinates and how their powerfulness/powerlessness was related to various power tactics used to influence their subordinates. How managers’ powerfulness was related to perception of subordinates’ behaviour at work? Three hundred forty managers belonging to 4 public and 4 private sector banks participated in the study. The results showed that managers considered themselves moderately powerful Enforcing Discipline, Authority to Sanction, Authority to Reward and Persuasiveness contributed positively to powerfulness of managers while Appeasement and Doing Favours to Superiors contributed negatively to the same. Powerful managers perceived their subordinates’ behaviour relatively more positively. Enforcing Discipline, Pressure for Compliance, Persuasiveness and Authority to Reward emerged as important influence strategies to arrest dysfunctional Employee Behaviour. Exchange of Favours seemed to be ineffective influence strategy as it helped thriving dysfunctional Employee Behaviour.


Power is one of the most important determinants of managerial effectiveness. Bennis and Nanus (1985) regarded it, as the basic energy needed to initiate and sustain actions. It is a factor without which, leaders cannot lead. It provides the capacity to translate intentions into reality. Power is at the essence of managerial actions and leadership. It can be defined as the potential ability to influence behaviour, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance and to get people do things that they would not otherwise do (Pfeffer, 1981). Politics and influence are the processes, the actions, the behaviours through which this potential power is utilized and realized.

1.1 Types of Power

Etzioni (1961) talked about two kinds of power: position power and persona/power Position power refers to ability to induce or influence others behaviour because of one’s position in the organization. French and Raven’s (1959) legitimate power can be considered position power. Employees obey the orders of those who have formal authority or position power. If individuals derive their power from their own skills and efforts they are considered to have persona/power. Following the perspective of Etzioni, position power and authority have been interchangeably used in the present paper. Persona/ power is the extent to which subordinates are willing to follow the leader. Persons with personal power can extend affection, love, consideration, encouragement, recognition and attachment. Bass, Wurster and Alcock (1961) found that people want to be valued and esteemed mainly by those whom they value and respect. Therefore people bestow such persons with personal power. It is therefore clear that personal power comes from below, from the followers. It is a volatile kind of power. It can be taken away more quickly by the subordinates as compared to position power. French and Raven’s Referent Power and Expert power would form part of personal power.

Etzioni (1961) proposed that it is ideal for leaders to have both personal and position power. But which one is more important to possess and use in getting things done at work-is perennial question asked by managers. Human Relations school would advocate for personal power to be more important as it arouses positive emotions among the target of influence. But Machiavelli (1950) advocates that relationship based on love alone is short lived and easily terminated when there is no fear of retaliation. According to Machiavelli, relationship based on fear sustains longer, as individual must be prepared to bear the cost before terminating the relationship. But the magnitude of fear should not be of the magnitude that it evokes hatred among followers.

1.2 Power Tactics for Getting Things Done

Michener and Burt (1975) examined factors responsible for leadership success in eliciting compliance. They reported that compliance was greater when leaders explained that their demands as good for the group, had power to punish persons who did not comply to the leaders’ commands, and had a legitimate right to make demands on subordinates. Another study (Gamson, 1968) suggested that leaders would shift toward coercion of subordinates if they perceived that they lacked subordinates’ approval but did have the legitimate authority for asking for compliance. Other studies examined how employees attempted to influence their bosses, colleagues, subordinates, lovers and students (Ansari, Kapoor, and Rehana, 1984; Falbo, 1982;Kipnis et al, 1980). A review of these studies revealed that a number of overlapping strategies are available. Most widely cited strategies are reported here:

Assertiveness: Use of direct and forceful approach such as demanding compliance with requests, repeating reminders, pointing out rules, ordering what’s to be done, becoming a nuisance.

Bargaining. Offering an exchange of benefits or favours.

Coalition. Getting support of others peers, subordinates in the organization to backup their view point.

Friendliness/Ingratiation: Use of flattery, creation of goodwill, being friendly, showing a need, asking politely and acting humble for getting things done.

Higher Authority/Upward Appeal. Getting the support of higher ups in the organization to back up the request.

Reason/Persuasiveness/Rationally Use of facts, data, making persuasive presentation to support one’s stand.

Sanctions. Use of organizationally derived rewards or punishment such as promising or preventing salary increase, promotion or withholding promotion, writing unsatisfactory appraisal report.

1.3 Research Questions and Hypothesis

With the above backdrop in mind, the study has explored following questions:

1. To what extent do Indian managers feel powerful/powerless?

2. How do they perceive the behaviour of their subordinates?

3. Are there any relationship between influence strategies used by managers and perception of their subordinates’ behaviour?

4. Are there any relationship between power tactics and powerfulness of managers?

Indian managers often complain that their authority/position power has eroded. Their subordinates are not accepting their authority. Thus, they feel powerlessness (Singh, 1990; Singh, 1985; Singh-Sengputa, 1989; Sinha, 1986). Their powerlessness seems to arise from the situations where their subordinates do not comply with their lawful commands and the managers are not able to elicit desired response from them. This sense of powerlessness is more prevalent in public sector (Singh, 1990, Sinha and Sengupta, 1991). However, all managers do not display the sense of powerlessness. This is contingent upon manager’s personality characteristics, subordinate’s characteristics and behaviour and organizational policy on delegation of authority. In fact, where work culture is conducive, subordinates perceive the management process as fair, and like their work, managers with legitimate base of power are able to sail through smoothly. But, where subordinates do not have normal work ethic, managers claiming legitimate powers over their subordinates may experience difficulty. Such managers have two alternative course of action: (1) they try to use their coercive power, start forcing their subordinates to comply through threat and sanctions and feel powerful. Alternatively, (2) they may resort to soft methods of influencing such as persuading, appeasing, coaxing, saying good words or showing helplessness to get things done. Depending on outcome of their influence attempts, they may either feel powerful or powerless. The sense of powerfulness/ powerlessness in turn may likely to affect managers’ outcomes i.e. personal effectiveness and job satisfaction.

H1. Powerful managers would perceive their subordinates more work oriented

Powerful managers would less frequently experience resistance from their subordinates, and may believe that their subordinates are internally driven and are likely to operate on theory Y assumptions. Thus they may perceive their subordinates more work oriented. Thus higher the overall power of managers the higher will be the perceived work orientation of employees.

H2. Managers perceiving their subordinates as non-work oriented will use coercive power in order to remain powerful

If managers perceive their subordinates as non-work oriented, they will perceive behaviour of their subordinates as externally driven and are likely to operate on theory X assumptions. Such managers in order to have upper hand over their subordinates would start using coercion and threat as influence strategies (Gamson, 1968; Michener and Burt ,1975). Thus strong power tactics would be positively related with powerfulness when subordinates are perceived non-work oriented.

H3. Managers perceiving their subordinates as non-work oriented and use soft influence strategies would report powerlessness.

If managers perceive their subordinates as non-work oriented, they would perceive behaviour of their subordinates as externally driven and operate on theory X assumptions. But when the subordinates are perceived, as aggressive and defiant, managers feel powerless, they may use soft influence strategies to handle the problem and protect their skin.


2.1 Sample

Three hundred forty managers belonging to four public and four private sector banks participated in the study. These managers have average work experience of 18 years and average education of Graduation. A typical participant in the study had on average received more than one promotion in his/ her career. They belonged to large, medium and small sized branches and administrative offices of various banks spread through out India.

2.2 Measures

Following measures were used in the study:

Measure of Authority: This measure included ten areas for which respondents were asked (1) Whether they had the authority and (2) If yes, the extent to which they actually used this authority. Responses to (1) were taken in terms of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and were converted into percentage of managers saying Yes. Responses to (2) were elicited on a 5- point scale, ranging from Never (1), Rarely (2), Sometimes (3), Frequently (4) to Always (5). The ten areas of authority were : (1) Recruiting clerical and support staff, (2) Recommending for training , (3) Assigning work, (4) Transferring from one area to another, (5) Transferring from one branch to another, (6) Sanctioning leaves, (7) taking disciplinary action, (8) Recommending them for promotion, (9) Appraising performance, and (10) Taking extra work.

Strong Power Measure. There were eleven items asking respondents to rate whether they can ask, pressurise force, etc., their clerical and subordinate staff to perform their role and to complete their work even if it requires coming to the office on off-days. Items also included coercive power, i.e. shouting at them, if they keep repeating the same mistake and to give unsatisfactory performance evaluation if they do not work well. Responses were obtained on the same 5-point scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5).

Overall Index of Power. To measure overall power a single question, “on the whole how much power and influence you have over your clerical and support staff” was asked. Managers responded on a 5-point scale ranging from None (1), Very little (2), Some (3), Great Deal (4), and Maximum possible (5).

The Soft Power Measure. The soft power measure consisted of 14 items relating to persuasion, polite request, praise; appeasement etc. to impress upon subordinates the urgency and importance of work. The items also included, personal favours by managers to their subordinates, arranging extra benefits etc. Responses were on a 5-point scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5).

Perception of Employee Behaviour. This measure consisted of 20 items regarding how the managers perceived their subordinates. The items included extent to which subordinates were work oriented, punctual, concerned with pending work, defiant, engaged in personal work during office hours, busy with union activity, violating discipline, finding faults with their superiors, making fun of their superiors. Responses were taken on a 5- point scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5).


3.1 Authority and its Usage

In terms of availability of authority, writing appraisal report topped the list (M=74.12%) followed by recommendations for further training (M=62.94%) and taking extra work (M=61.18%) Taking disciplinary action (M=39.41%) and recommending for promotion (M=39.41%) were available with relatively less number of managers. As far as usage of available authority is concerned, except writing appraisal report (M=63%), other dimensions were sparingly used. The five areas of authority can be further grouped into two. (a) Authority to Reward. It included two areas -recommendations for training, recommendation for promotion and (b) Authority to sanction: it included three areas; taking disciplinary action, writing appraisal report, and taking extra work. Managers’ overall power was positively related with the two composite dimensions, namely, Authority to Reward and Authority to Sanction.

3.2 Overall Power and Power Tactics

The rating of overall power was 64.75 percent of the maximum possible score, suggesting that in general, managers perceived themselves moderately powerful rather than totally powerless. Frequency analysis of this measure further reinforced this contention. Out of 340 managers only 13% regarded that they had none or very little power and influence over their subordinates whereas 52% of managers rated themselves to have a great deal or maximum possible power. Only 35% managers considered themselves to have some power and influence over their subordinates.

The responses on 11 items of strong power measures were subjected to varimax rotated factors analysis. The analysis revealed two factors. On the basis of factor loading of the items factors were named as (1) Enforcing Discipline (Eigen value =3.41; Percent of explained variance =31.00, Alpha =.78) and (2) Pressure of Compliance of Superiors Expectation (Eigen value =1.52; Percent of explained variance=13.80, Alpha= .42). Overall Power (M=3.59, SD = 1.01) was positively related with both the dimensions of strong power measure. However, the magnitude of relationship, was higher for Enforcing Discipline (r = .38, df=-338, p<.01). Enforcing Discipline was more frequently used power measure (Mean in percent=37.36) than Pressure for Compliance of superiors expectations (Mean in percent=24.38).

The responses of 14 items of soft power measures were subjected to varimax rotated factor analysis. The analysis revealed 4 factors. On the basis of factor loading on various items, factors were named as (1) Persuasiveness (Eigen value=3.70, Percent of variance explained=26.4, Alpha=.72) (2) Exchange of Favours (Eigen value=1.51, Percent of variance=10.8, Alpha=.55), (3) Appeasement(Eigen value=1.13, Percent of variance explained =8.1, Alpha = .52, and (4) Showing Helplessness (Eigen value =1.05, Percent of variance explained = 7.5, Alpha = .06). Since the last factor, Showing Helplessness had a very low reliability (.06), it was dropped from further analysis.

On the examination of relative use of various measures of power and authority we find that Persuasiveness tops the list followed by Appeasement and Exchange of Favours. Moreover strong power tactics were less frequently used than soft power tactics. Pressure for Compliance was the least frequently used power strategy.

Relationship among various power tactics was examined through correlation. Results are summarized in Table 1. Overall power was positively related with two dimensions of strong power measures, namely Enforcing Discipline and Pressure for Compliance. Out of the three dimensions of soft power tactics two namely, Persuasiveness and Exchange of Favours were positively related with Overall Power. To our surprise strong and soft tactics of power were positively correlated. The results simply suggest that managers are not constrained and fixated to any one tactic; instead they use variety of tactics to in get things done depending on the situation (Table 1).

3.3 Perception of Subordinate Behaviour

The responses on 20 items relating to subordinate behaviour were subjected to varimax rotated factor analysis. The analysis revealed 5 factors. The first factor explained 31.8 percent of variance (Alpha= .82). It consisted of 7 items. Based on factor loadings on various items, the factor was named as Lack of Work Ethic. The items loaded on the first factor, conveyed the idea that subordinates were perceived to concentrate on non-work related tasks during working hours while official work suffered.

The second factor consisting of 6 items accounted for 8.2 percent of variance (Alpha=.81). Based on factor loading of various items, the factor was named as Evasion of Responsibility. Items loaded on this factor conveyed the idea of hostility against superiors, customers, and work.

The third factor accounted for 8.2 percent of variance and consisted of 3 items (Alpha=.62). Taking factor loading on various items in to account, the factor was named as Indiscipline.

The four and fifth factors consisted of two items each and accounted for 11 percent of variance together. Alpha reliability of both the factors is of moderate range. (Factor 4 Alpha =.44 and Factor 5, Alpha =.46). On the basis of factor loading on various items, factors were named as Work to Rule and Personal Favours to Superiors respectively.

Thus the five dimensions emerged out of factor analysis, namely, (1)Lack of Work Ethic,(2) Evasion of Responsibility, (3) Indiscipline, (4) Work to Rule, and (5) Personal Favours to Superiors gave the general impression that by and large, managers perceived their subordinates less work oriented.

How Overall Power was related to managers’ perception of their subordinates’ behaviour at work was examined through bi-variate correlation (Table 2). Results clearly showed that powerful managers consistently rated their subordinates in positive light as all the correlations with Non-work oriented employee behaviour were negative. The findings are in confirmation with Hl, that powerful managers would perceive their subordinates relatively more work oriented than low powerful managers.

3.4 Power Tactics and Subordinate Employees’ Behaviour

Relationship of between various power tactics, and two authority (Independent set) and dimensions of subordinate behaviour (dependent set) are reported in Table 3.

Enforcing Discipline emerged as a negative predictor for four of the five non-work oriented employee behaviour, namely, Lack of Work Ethic, Evasion of Responsibility, Indiscipline and Personal Favours to Superiors. The results suggest that Enforcing Discipline -a mixture of Assertiveness and Coercive Power is useful in curbing non-work oriented behaviour among subordinates. This finding is congruent with H2 suggesting that managers will use more coercive power tactics if perceive their employees non-work oriented. Similarly, Pressure for Compliance was negatively related to Work to Rule suggesting that when employees are defiant and use non-work oriented tactics, managers need to use strong power tactics for getting desired performance. Persuasiveness was negatively related with only one dimension, namely, Evasion of Responsibility. The results suggest that employees are not fulfilling their commitments, managers may try using rational appeal, talk with data etc. It can bring some sensible employees back on track. Authority to Reward also emerged negative predictor of Work to Rule suggesting that Authority Reward would reduce Work to Rule behaviour among employees. Exchange of Favours was positively related with three employee behviour dimensions: Lack of Work Ethic, Indiscipline, and Personal Favours to Superiors. The results suggest that managers lose moral right to direct and to elicit work oriented behaviour when they indulge in exchanging favours. These exchanges happen at the cost of organization, thus organization suffers. Thus strong power tactics are relatively more useful in curbing non-work oriented behaviour among employees.

3.5 Determinants of Overall Power

In order to test H2 we computed a regression equations keeping Overall Power as dependent and employee behaviour dimensions and two strong power tactics and Authority to Sanction as independent variable. Regression analysis results ([R.sup.2] = .231, F(3,338)=33.63, p<.001) revealed that Enforcing Discipline (Standardized [beta] = .28, t = 5.29, p<.01) and Authority to Sanction (Standardized 13 = .22, t = 4.18, p<.01) positively contributed to Overall Power while Doing Personal Favours to Superiors contributed negatively(Standardized 13 = -.20, t = -4.06, p<.01) to the same. The results are consistent with H2 that managers will use coercive tactics in order to feel powerful if subordinates are perceived non-work oriented.

H3 was also tested by using similar analysis keeping Overall Power as dependent and Soft Power tactics and employee behaviour dimensions as independent variables. Regression analysis results ([R.sup.2]= .174, F (4, 335)= 17.59; p< .0001) revealed that Persuasiveness was positive contributor to powerfulness(Standardized [beta] = .35, t = 5.91, p<.01) while Appeasement (Standardized [beta] = -.15, t = -2.47, p<.01), Evasion of Responsibility(Standardized [3 = -.13, t = -2.25, p<.01), and Doing Personal Favours to Superiors (Standardized [beta] = -.17, t = -2.99, p<.01)emerged negative contributors to the same. The three negative contributors to powerfulness: Appeasement, Evasion of Responsibility and Doing Personal Favours to Superiors make managers powerless and helpless and managers become onlookers to lack of performance and unruly behviour of their subordinates. The findings are partially consistent with H3 that managers who perceive their employees as non-work oriented and use soft power tactics would feel powerless as three of the fours significant contributors have negative relationship with Overall Power.

In order to examine relative importance of significant contributors to powerfulness, Overall Power was related with various power tactics, employee behaviour dimensions and the two dimensions of authority. A step-wise multiple regression technique was used to perform this analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4. The analysis identified six significant contributors to powerfulness. Consistent with our hypothesis, strong power tactics namely, Enforcing Discipline and Authority to Reward and Authority to Sanction emerged as positive contributors to Overall Powerfulness. Among positive contributors Enforcing Discipline emerged as strongest explaining 14.8 percent of variance followed by Authority to Sanction which explained 4.5 percent of variance in Overall Power. The other two positive contributors Persuasiveness and Authority to Reward contributed 1.6 and 1 percent variance respectively. One dimension of employee behaviour- Doing Personal Favours to Superiors emerged as significant negative contributor to Overall Powerfulness and explained 3.8 percent of variance. Appeasement also emerged as a significant negative contributor to powerfulness explaining only 1 percent of variance. These findings are again, in line with the hypotheses: that when work orientation of subordinates is negative, and managers use soft power tactics, they would feel powerlessness. Similarly, managers’ use of strong/coercive power tactics make them feel more powerful when employees are perceived non-work oriented. Thus managers who use Appeasement, would most likely to report powerlessness while managers using Enforcing Discipline tactic would most likely to feel powerful. The findings also suggest that use of strong power tactics contribute relatively more to powerfulness of managers as compared to soft power tactics.


Findings revealed that managers considered themselves moderately powerful with an average overall rating of 64.75 per cent. The findings of overall rating of power is very similar to that of Sinha and Singh-Sengupta(1991) who reported an average rating of 64.5 per cent (M=3.58) on overall power. Slightly more than half of the managers considered either very much influential or influential to the maximum extent. Thus situation is mixed one. Mangers can see the half glass empty or the half glass full. It may also be recognised that managers would never have absolute power over their subordinates. Neither it is required nor desirable in the interest of organizations. Therefore, ultimately it is the outlook of managers towards the available power that will make them effective or ineffective.

It was clearly observed that manager who considered themselves powerful used Authority to Reward and Authority to Sanction, as the two variables were positively related to Overall Power. This finding suggests that managers using various authorities more frequently would perceive themselves to be more powerful. The finding also supports earlier study of Sinha and Singh-Sengupta(1991). Sharma (1993) in his study on managerial unionism had used a measure of delegation of authority. Even in that study public sector managers had reported an overall average rating of 33.38 percent of delegation of authority and stated that sense of powerlessness was one of the reasons for formation of managerial unions.

Managers considered themselves either powerful or powerless depending on how they perceived their subordinates. Findings clearly showed that powerful managers regard their subordinate behaviour relatively less problematic as employee behaviour dimensions: Lack of Work Ethic, Evasion of Responsibility, Indiscipline, Work to Rule and Personal Favours to Superiors were negatively related with Overall Power. This result may be there because subordinates are afraid of defying orders of superiors due to attached consequences of misbehaving. Alternatively subordinates may be sincere in their work, thus manager don’t experience any resistance from their subordinates, and hence experience of powerfulness. These hypotheses can be tested in future studies.

When subordinates were perceived to be indisciplined and uncooperative, managers used coercive strategy to maintain their powerfulness. This contention was tested and found true in regression analysis results. Results suggested that coercive power measures namely, Enforcing Discipline and Authority to Sanction were used by managers to gain powerfulness. Managers also used Persuasiveness and Authority to Reward to attain powerfulness. Doing Favour to Superiors and Appeasement appeared to reduce managers’ powerfulness. Explanation for these two findings is straightforward. Managers who use good words in front of their subordinates to keep them in good humour, or praise openly without meaning it to get thing done from subordinates, may be successful in delivering results, but in heart of their heart these managers cry over their plight, and privately say :to get things done even donkey is called father. Similarly, when managers seek personal favours form their subordinates, they lose the moral authority over their subordinates, and fail to enforce organizational norms impartially, thus a sense of powerlessness. This finding has given partial support to the hypothesis that when subordinates are non-work-oriented, and managers used soft power tactics they would experience powerlessness. Findings thus, suggested that strong power tactics and position power might be more important in gaining power.

Relative use of various power tactics gave impression that managers primarily used Persuasion to influence their subordinates in their day-to-day functioning. If Persuasion did not work then Appeasement and Exchange of Favours were used. Strong power tactics were sparingly used. This pattern of usage of various power tactics throws light on dynamics of power in banking industry. Top management is considered a remote agency which suggests to their local managements ‘ to handle the situation tactfully’ and more often than not the top management does not come to the rescue of their local management if local management takes any tough/painful decision which has industrial relations implications. Therefore, managers at branch/local level are left with limited options of using soft tactics of power, i.e. Persuasion etc. The finding is also consistent with Kipnis et al. (1984) who reported Reason/Persuasiveness is most popular and while Sanction is least popular and other tactics fall in between when managers influence their subordinates.

Further strong power Tactics: Enforcing Discipline and Pressure for Compliance were positively related with soft tactics of power suggesting that managers do not perceive use of strong and soft tactics mutually exclusive. The findings indicate that managers are flexible in using various power tactics. The implications of the findings are that managers are ready and willing to use multiple measures of power to get things done.

We are again returning to our basic question- which bases of power should managers use to build working relationship and performance? This study also suggest that ideally both personal and position power should be used to influence one’s subordinates. But when one is forced to opt between the two this study would suggest to opt for position power that produces both love and fear among subordinates. This view is substantiated by this study, as out of four positive contributors to powerfulness, as many as three belonged to position power.



Power Dimensions Mean SD Mean in %# Rank

1. Enforcing discipline 17.46 4.51 37.36 4

2. Pressure for compliance 7.90 2.39 24.38 7

3. Persuasiveness 18.65 3.40 68.25 1

4. Appeasement 10.94 2.21 66.20 2

5. Exchange of favours 10.55 2.63 40.94 3

6. Authority to reward 4.00 2.31 33.00 6

7. Authority to sanction 7.23 2.51 35.25 5

8. Overall Power 3.59 1.01 64.75 —

Power Dimensions 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Enforcing discipline 20 50 29 15 27 41 38

2. Pressure for compliance — 22 15 35 14 26 13

3. Persuasiveness — 51 35 14 25 31

4. Appeasement — 35 10 04 05

5. Exchange of favours — 11 09 12

6. Authority to reward — 41 26

7. Authority to sanction — 35

8. Overall Power —

# Mean in % = [(Raw Score – Minimum Possible Score) / (Maximum Possible

Score – Minimum Possible Score)] x 100 Decimal points omitted from

correlation coefficients; r = .10 and .13 are significant at p<.05 and

p<.01 level for one tailed test.



Employee Behaviour Dimensions r(df=338)

Lack of work ethic -.23 **

Evasion of responsibility -.26 **

Indiscipline -.13 **

Work to rule -.14 **

Personal favours to superiors -.24 **

** p<.01



Power Lack of Work Evasion of

Dimensions Ethic Responsibility

Std. t Std. t

[beta] [beta]

Enforcing -.26 -4.75 ** -.24 -4.05 **


Pressure for


Persuasiveness -.13 -2.11 *


Exchange of .13 2.54 *


Authority to


Authority to


Power Indiscipline Work to Rule


Std. t Std. t

[beta] [beta]

Enforcing -.16 -3.02 **


Pressure for -.26 -4.92 **




Exchange of .18 3.39 **


Authority to -.12 -2.35 *


Authority to


Power Personal

Dimensions Favours to


Std. t


Enforcing -.11 -2.06 *


Pressure for




Exchange of .19 3.59 **


Authority to


Authority to


* p<.05; ** p<.01


Variables [R.sup.2] Std. t

Change [beta] (df=333)

Enforcing discipline .148 .21 3.59 **

Authority to sanction .045 .16 2.82 **

Doing Personal favours to superiors .038 -.19 -4.01 **

Persuasiveness .016 .21 3.41 **

Appeasement .010 -.13 -2.26 *

Authority to Reward .010 .11 2.09 *

* p<.05, ** p<.01; [R.sup.2]=.267; F(6,333) = 20.22, P<.00001


Ansari, MA., Kapoor, A. , and Rehana, “Social Power in Indian Organizations”, Indian Journal Industrial Relations,, Vol.XX, 1984.237-244.

Bass, BM., Wurster, C.R. and Alcock, W., “A Test of the Proposition: We Want to be Esteemed Most by Those We Esteem Most Highly”, Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol.LXIII, 1961, 650-653.

Benis, W. and Nanaus, B., Leaders. The Strategies for Taking Charge. Harper, New York, 1985.

Etzioni, A., A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations on Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. Free Press, New York, 1961.

Falbo, T., “PAQ Styles and Power Strategies used In Intimate Relationships”‘ Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. VI, 1982, 537-547.

French, J.R.P. and Raven, B., The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power, University of Michigan, Institute of Social Research, Ann Arbor, 1959.

Gammon, W.A., Power and Discontent. Dorsey, Homewood., Illinois, 1968.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., and Wilkinson, I. , “Intraorganizational Influence Tactics: Explorations in Getting One’s Way”. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. LXV, 1980, 440-452.

Kipnis, D., ” Patterns of Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacticiansand Bystanders”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. XlI, 1984, 58-67.

Machiavelli, N., The Prince and the Discourses. Random House Inc, New York, 1950.

Michener, L.A. and Burr, M.R., ” Components of Authority as Determinant of Compliance”, Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. XXXI, 1975, 601-614.

Pfeffer, J., Power in Organizations. Pitman Publishing, Marshfield, MA., 1981.

Sharma, B.R., Managerial Unionism: Issues in Perspective, Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources, New Delhi,1993.

Singh, C.B.P., Behavioural Strategies in Power Relationship. Patana University, Patna: 1985.

Singh, S., Organizational Stress and Executive Behaviour. Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resouces, New Delhi, 1990.

Singh-Signups, S., “Changing Patterns of Power Distribution in Banking Organizations”, Management and Labour Studies, Vol. XIV, 1989, 183-193.

Sinha, J.B.P., “Emerging Power Patterns in Work Organizations”, Management and Labour Studies, Vol. XI, 1986, 86-96.

Sinha, J.BP. and Singh-Sengupta, S., ” Relationship between Managers’ Power and the Perception of their Non-Managers’ Behaviour”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. XXVI, 1991, 341-351.

Author Profile

Dr Shailendra Singh earned his Ph.D. from Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur in 1987. He is a Professor of Organizational Behaviour at Indian Institute of Management Lucknow, India. His current research interest are high performance organizations, value based leadership, improving effectiveness of individual and organizational systems. He has published four books and more than 40 papers in various national and international journals.

COPYRIGHT 2004 International Academy of Business and Economics

COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group