Main effects for power base on these aspects of the powerholder-target relationship were primarily accounted for by coercive power, with this mean significantly lower than those of the other bases. Specifically, subjects perceived greater possibility for future use of power, less surveillance necessary, more attraction to powerholder by target and more private acceptance by target following positive rather than negative outcomes, with unknown outcomes in-between. Although an expected interaction between type of outcome and power base was not found, main effects were obtained for each. Compliance resulted either in all positive, all negative, or else unknown outcomes for the target across the six influence. To determine the effects of compliance outcome and basis of power on the powerholder-target relationship, 108 undergraduates each read six scenarios in which a powerholder influenced a target by using a different one of the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Theoretical implications for social power and attributional mediation are discussed. Supervisors, as compared to workers, were particularly likely to assume responsibility for inducing change, feel confident that change would continue, and evaluate the other favorably. Subjects were more likely to attribute compliance to the worker's will if referent, information, or reward power was used, less so if coercion or legitimate power was used. Coercive and legitimate power were least effective in both respects. power were most conducive to mutual evaluation and liking. Information power was perceived as most effective in inducing private acceptance of change.
Half the subjects were asked to take the perspective of the supervisor in answering the questions and half that of the worker. Might her choices have for the effectiveness of this team? Read moreħ2 subjects read six scenarios in which a supervisor used different bases of power to successfully influence a worker to alter his method of work. She might exert no special influence at all, acting as an average team member in all domains. Relations with senior leaders, to controlling the conflict-management processes within the group. Or she may use her special influence to dominate a range of team functions, from managing Might use her power solely to influence the team’s task approach in the areas most relevant to her particular This dependency gives her power (Emerson, 1964). Team is dependent to complete its task well. Of the team is especially expert in member-engagement practices and root cause analysis, upon which the Whose purpose is to solve a problem in the organization’s ability to attract new members. These powerholders use their power may vary from team to team. Give them more power than the average team member (French & Raven, 1959 Hollander, 1958). Have essential skills and experience, networks outside the team, or status within the organization that Even within teams of peers, certain individuals have more power than others.
0 kommentar(er)
