Power
8C H A P T E R
CHAPTER OUTLINE CHAPTER OVERVIEW
8-1 Obedience to Authority Power is a group-level process, predicated on dif-
8-1a The Milgram Experiments ferentiation in each member’s capacity to influence
8-1b Milgram’s Findings others. Those with power sometimes make
8-1c The Power of the Milgram Situation demands that others in the group try to resist, but
they also influence by persuading, cajoling, and
8-2 Social Power in Groups maneuvering. Power processes can trigger conflict,
8-2a Bases of Power tension, and animosity, but these same processes
8-2b Bases and Obedience also promote order, stability, and efficiency. We
8-2c Power Tactics would not be social beings if we were immune to
the impact of power, but power can corrupt.
8-3 Social Status in Groups
8-3a Claiming Status ■ What are the limits of an authority’s power?
8-3b Achieving Status
8-3c Status Hierarchies and Stability ■ What are the sources of power in groups?
8-4 The Metamorphic Effects of Power ■ What are the sources of status in groups?
8-4a Changes in the Powerholder
8-4b Reactions to the Use of Power ■ Does gaining power have a transformative
8-4c Who Is Responsible? effect on people?
Chapter Review ■ How do people react when power is used to
Resources influence them?
230
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 231
The People’s Temple: The Metamorphic Effects of Power
The members of the People’s Temple Full Gospel Church men, women, and children of Jonestown did not find
were united by a shared vision of a world much better contentment. They found, instead, a group that exercised
than this one. Jim Jones, the group’s founder, was an incredible power over their destiny. Jones asked members
inspiring leader who decried the racism, inequality, and to make great personal sacrifices for the group, and time
spiritual emptiness of American society. He won the and again they obeyed. They worked long hours in the
respect of his community, and, under his charismatic fields. They were given little to eat. They were forbidden
leadership, the congregation grew to 8,000 members. to communicate with their loved ones back home. When
But the church, and Jones, had a dark side. Former a congressional delegation from the United States visited,
members reported that at some services, people were disaster struck: An armed group of church members
beaten before the congregation, with microphones used attacked and killed the outsiders.
to amplify their screams. Jones, some said, insisted on
being called Father, and he demanded dedication and Jones, fearing the dismantling of all he had
absolute obedience from his followers. He asked mem- worked to create, ordered his followers to take their
bers to donate their property to the church, and he even own lives. When authorities reached the settlement,
forced one family to give him their six-year-old son. they could not believe the scope of the tragedy. On
Jones’s orders, 908 men, women, and children had
Jones, to transform his church into a collective soci- either killed themselves or been killed by other fol-
ety free from the interference of outsiders, moved the lowers. One resident wrote this entry (his last) in his
entire congregation to Guyana, in South America. He journal that day: “We are begging only for some
called the isolated settlement Jonestown and claimed understanding. It will take more than small minds … to
that it would be the model for a new way of living where fathom these events. Something must come of this”
all would find love, happiness, and well-being. But the (quoted in Scheeres, 2011, p. 237).
Few interactions advance very far before elements of charisma, his depravity. Others emphasized the
power and influence come into play. The police offi- kind of people who join such groups—their psy-
cer asking the driver for the car’s registration, the chological instability, their willingness to identify
teacher scowling at the errant student, and the boss with causes, and their religious fervor. But such
telling an employee to get back to work—all are rely- explanations underestimate the power of groups
ing on social power to influence others. In many and their leaders. As Chapter 7 noted, groups
cases group members nudge rather than push; they influence members’ thoughts, actions, and
suggest rather than pressure. But in other cases their feelings—with results that range from the ordi-
influence can be extraordinarily strong. Rather than nary and every day to the extraordinary and
subtly shaping opinions and choices, some can compel extreme. But can group members be so bent to
others to do things they would rather not do. Here the will of an authority that they would follow
we consider the sources of that power and the con- any order, no matter how noxious? Social psy-
sequences of power for those who wield it as well as chologist Stanley Milgram’s (1963, 1974) experi-
those who are subjected to it (Cartwright, 1959). mental studies of obedience to authority suggest
that they can.
8-1 OBEDIENCE TO 8-1a The Milgram Experiments
AUTHORITY
Stanley Milgram carried out his now-famous stud-
Why did the Jonestown group obey Jones’s orders? ies in the early 1960s. Intrigued by people’s ten-
Some blamed Jim Jones—his persuasiveness, his dency to do as they are told, he tested American
subjects’ reactions to an experimenter who
social power The capacity to produce intended effects ordered them to do something they would nor-
in interpersonal contexts. mally not do—to harm a person innocent of any
wrongdoing.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
232 C H A P T E R 8
The Obedience Situation Milgram studied obe- switch was 30, the next was 45, and so on, all the
dience by creating small groups in his laboratory at way up to 450 V. Milgram also labeled the voltage
Yale University. In most cases, he studied three- levels, from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock as
man groups: One member was a volunteer who shown in Figure 8.1. The final two switches were
had answered an advertisement; one was the exper- marked XXX. The rest of the face of the shock
imenter who was in charge of the session; and one generator was taken up by dials, lights, and meters
appeared to be another participant but was in actu- that flickered whenever a switch was pressed.
ality part of the research team. This confederate
looked to be in his late 40s, and he seemed friendly The experimenter administered a sample
and a little nervous. The self-assured experimenter shock of 45 V to “strengthen the subject’s belief
set the group’s agenda, explained their task, issued in the authenticity of the generator” (Milgram,
orders, and assigned the participants to one of two 1974, p. 20). Then, speaking into a microphone,
roles—teacher or learner. Teachers read a series of the teacher read the list of word pairs and then
paired words (blue box, nice day, wild duck, etc.) to began “testing” the learner’s memory. Each time
the learner who was supposed to memorize the the teacher read a word and the response alterna-
pairings. The teacher would later check the lear- tives, the learner indicated his response by pushing
ner’s ability to recall the pairs by reading the first one of four numbered switches that were just
word in the pair and several possible answers (e.g., within reach of his bound hand. His response lit
blue: sky, ink, box, lamp). Failures would be punished up on the participant’s control panel. Participants
by an electric shock. What the volunteer did not were to deliver one shock for each mistake and
know, however, was that the confederate was increase the voltage one step after delivering a
always assigned to the learner role and that the punishment.
learner did not actually receive shocks.
The Demands (Prods) Milgram set the stage for
After assigning the participants to their roles, the order-giving phase by having the learner make
the experimenter took both group members into mistakes deliberately. Although participants pun-
the next room where he strapped the learner into ished that first mistake with just a 15-V jolt, each
a chair that was designed “to prevent excessive subsequent failure was followed by a stronger
movement during the shock.” As the experimenter shock. At the 300-V level, the learner also began
attached an electrode to his wrist, the confederate to protest the shocks by pounding on the wall, and,
asked if the shocks were dangerous. “Oh, no,” after the next shock of 315 V, he stopped respond-
answered the experimenter, “although the shocks ing altogether. Most participants assumed that the
can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent session was over at this point, but the experimenter
tissue damage” (Milgram, 1974, p. 19). told them to treat a failure to respond as a wrong
answer and to continue delivering the shocks.
The experimenter then led the participant back When the participants balked, the experimenter,
to the other room and seated him at the shock gen- who was seated at a separate desk near the teacher’s,
erator. This bogus machine, which Milgram himself would use a sequence of prods to goad them into
fabricated, featured a row of 30 electrical switches. action (Milgram, 1974, p. 21):
Each switch, when depressed, would supposedly
send a shock to the learner. The shock level of ■ Prod 1: “Please continue,” or “Please go on.”
the first switch on the left was 15 volts V, the next
■ Prod 2: “The experiment requires that you
obedience Compliance with authoritative directives continue.”
pertaining to a given situation, including changes in
behavior in response to instructions, orders, and demands ■ Prod 3: “It is absolutely essential that you
issued by those with authority. continue.”
■ Prod 4: “You have no other choice; you must
go on.”
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 233
The situation was extremely realistic and served would give more than four or five shocks (Elms,
as a laboratory analog to real-world groups when 1995). So he was surprised when 26 of the 40
authorities give orders to subordinates. The experi- (65%) individuals who served as teachers in the ini-
menter acted with self-assurance and poise. He gave tial experiment administered the full 450 V to the
orders crisply, as if he never questioned the correctness presumably helpless learner (see Figure 8.1). Most
of his own actions, and he seemed surprised that the of the participants resisted, challenging the experi-
teacher would try to terminate the shock sequence. menter again and again each time he told them to
Yet from the participant’s point of view, this authority continue. But no one broke off before the 300-V
was requiring them to act in a way that was harmful level or checked on the learner when he failed to
to another person. When they accepted the $4.50 answer. The comments made by the participants
payment, they implicitly agreed to carry out the during the shock procedure and their obvious psy-
experimenter’s instructions, but they were torn chological distress revealed that they were reluctant
between this duty and their desire to protect the to go on but felt unable to resist the experimenter’s
learner from possible harm. Milgram designed his demands for obedience.
experiment to determine which side would win in
this conflict. Perplexed, Milgram studied over 800 people in a
series of replications and extensions of his original
8-1b Milgram’s Findings study. Although he continued to search for the limits
of obedience, again and again his participants buckled
Milgram was certain that very few of his partici- under the pressure of the experimenter’s power.
pants would carry out the experimenter’s orders.
He went so far as to purchase special equipment Harm versus Rights In the original version of
that would let him record the duration of each the study, the participants heard only a pounding
shock administered, expecting that few participants on the wall when they pressed down the switch for
300 V. So Milgram added additional cues that
100
Pounding Pounding
90 Sound Voice
80 “Ugh!” Heart
Percent obedient 70
60 “Let me
out of “I absolutely
50 here.” refuse to
answer any
Maximum
40 more. You Obedience
can’t hold me
(450 v)
30 here.”
20
10 Strong Very Intense Extreme Danger: XXX
Slight Moderate Shock Strong Shock Intensity severe 435 450
Shock Shock Shock
Shock Shock 135 255
195 315 375
0 75
15
VOLTS 30 45 60 VOLTS 90 105120 VOLTS 150165 180 VOLTS 210 225 240 VOLTS 270 285 300 VOLTS 330 345 360 VOLTS 390 405420 VOLTS VOLTS
Shock level
F I G U R E 8.1 Level of obedience in three conditions of the Milgram experiment: original (pounding on the wall),
voice-feedback (voice), and heart-condition (heart).
SOURCE: Adapted from Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, by Stanley Milgram. Copyright © 1974 by Stanley Milgram.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
234 C H A P T E R 8
What Made Them Stop?
After pretesting his procedures, Milgram added the back from the shock machine: the 150-V level. It was
sound of the learner’s grunts, groans, and screams, the participant’s protest “Get me out of here! I won’t
thinking that this clear evidence of the harm would be in the experiment anymore! I refuse to go on!”
prompt participants to resist the experimenter’s orders. delivered at that level that triggered a refusal to con-
But when social psychologist Dominic Packer (2008a) re- tinue (Milgram, 1974, p. 23). Packer concludes that the
examined the results of eight of Milgram’s studies meta- learner’s invocation of his rights created a qualitative
analytically, he found no association at all between change in the balance of power in the situation.
obedience and the learner’s cries of pain: screams did When they heard the learner withdraw his consent to
not prompt teachers to disobey. But he did discover a participate, many realized “that the learner’s right to
clear inflection point in the data—a place where far end the experiment trumped the experimenter’s right
more participants stopped following orders and pushed to give orders to the contrary” (2008a, p. 303).
signaled the learner’s suffering and an emotional same room as the teacher. In the proximity condition,
entreaty for release. In the voice-feedback condition, the learner sat in the same room as the teacher,
the learner’s shouts and pleas (carefully rehearsed voicing the same complaints used in the voice-
and tape-recorded) could be heard through the feedback condition and writhing with pain at each
wall. At 75 V, he grunted. At 120 V, he shouted shock. Obedience dropped to 40%. In the most
out. Painful cries continued to escalate in intensity extreme of all the variations, the touch-proximity con-
until the 180-V level when he shouted “I can’t dition, the learner sat next to the teacher and
stand the pain” (Milgram, 1974, p. 23). received his shock when he put his hand on a
shock plate. At the 150-V level, he refused to put
These changes did not substantially reduce the his hand down on the plate, so the experimenter
level of obedience, for 62.5% of the participants still gave the participant an insulated glove and told him
obeyed to the 450-V level. So Milgram increased the to press the learner’s hand down onto the plate as
possibility of significant harm in the heart-problem condi- he depressed the shock switch. Still, 30% obeyed.
tion. When the experimenter connected the wires to
his arm, the learner mentioned that he had a heart Milgram also examined the impact of increased
condition and asked about complications. The experi- distance between the experimenter and the teacher
menter said that the shocks would cause no permanent on rates of obedience by having the experimenter
damage. When shocked, the learner’s groans and leave the room after he reviewed the procedures
shouts of protest could be heard through the wall, with the participant. He continued giving orders
and he also repeatedly complained that his heart was to the participant by telephone, but he lost his abil-
bothering him. Even when the learner stopped ity to monitor the subject’s actions. In this low sur-
responding after 330 V, 65% of the participants contin- veillance condition, 25% of the participants stopped as
ued to administer shocks to the 450-V level. soon as the learner insisted on release (the 150-V
level). Only 20% of the participants were obedient
Proximity and Surveillance Effects In earlier to the 450-V level, and many participants dis-
versions of the study, the teacher and learner were obeyed by deceiving the authority—they assured
separated by a glass observation window. Milgram the experimenter that they were administering
noticed that, even though teachers could see the increasingly large shocks with each mistake when
learner react to the shocks, most averted their eyes they were actually only delivering 15 V.
and expressed discomfort at having to watch. So, to
make the consequences of their actions even clearer Prestige and Legitimacy Milgram conducted his
to subjects, Milgram moved the learner into the initial studies on the campus of Yale University,
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 235
which most people recognize as a prestigious center come on, I’m going to have to go through the
of learning and science. Milgram was concerned whole thing. Let’s go. Come on, let’s keep
that people obeyed the experimenter because he going” (Milgram, 1974, p. 97). In all cases, the par-
was perceived to be a “Yale scientist” and could ticipant released the experimenter; obedience to the
therefore be trusted to act appropriately. So, in the ordinary person’s command to harm the authority
office-building condition, Milgram moved the study to was nil.
a building located in a shopping area. “When sub-
jects inquired about professional affiliations, they Group Effects Milgram (1974) studied obedience
were informed only that we were a private firm rather than conformity, since the authority did not
conducting research for industry” (Milgram, 1974, himself engage in the action he demanded of the
pp. 68–69). Obedience dropped to 48%—still a teacher and the teacher faced the power of the
surprisingly large figure given the unknown cre- authority alone. But Milgram recognized that in
dentials of the staff. However, two individuals many cases authorities give orders to groups rather
refused to give any shocks at all. than lone individuals, and the group may be a sec-
ond source of power in the situation—either in
Milgram next diminished the authority’s legiti- standing against the authority or taking sides with
macy by arranging for the orders to come from him. So Milgram arranged for groups to administer
someone other than the expert experimenter. In the shocks. In the two peers rebel condition, Milgram
the ordinary-man variation, he added a fourth mem- added two more confederates to the situation. They
ber to the group who was given the task of record- posed as fellow participants and the three worked
ing the shock levels used. The experimenter together to deliver the shocks to the learner. One
explained the study, as in the other conditions, read the list of words, one gave the verbal feedback
but gave no instructions about shock levels before to the learner, and the participant pushed the shock
he was called away. The new participant, who was button. The subject sat before the shock machine,
actually a confederate, filled the role of the author- and the other group members sat on either side.
ity; he suggested that shocks be given in increas-
ingly strong doses and ordered the participant to The confederates played out their roles until
continue giving shocks when the learner started to the learner cried out in pain at 150 V. Then, one
complain. Obedience dropped to 20%. But when of the confederates refused to continue and left the
the participants refused to continue, the confederate table. The experimenter could not convince him to
left the experimenter’s desk and began administer- return and ordered the remaining two to continue.
ing the shocks. In this case, most of the participants However, at the 210-V mark, the second confed-
(68.75%) stood by and watched without stopping erate quit as well, explaining, “I’m not going to
the confederate—although one “large man, lifted shock that man against his will” (1974, p. 118).
the zealous shocker from his chair, threw him to a Only the real subject was left to give the shocks,
corner of the laboratory, and did not allow him to and, in most cases, he sided with the group and
move until he had promised not to administer fur- refused to obey. Only 10% of the participants
ther shocks” (1974, p. 97). were fully obedient. Membership in a group helped
participants defy the authority.
Milgram further explored the legitimacy of the
authority in the authority-as-victim condition. Here But what if an individual is part of a group that
the experimenter agreed to take the role of the was obedient? In the peer administers shock condition,
learner, supposedly to convince a reluctant learner the subject was given subsidiary tasks, such as read-
that the shocks were not harmful. The experi- ing the questions and giving feedback, but he
menter tolerated the shocks up to 150 V, but did not push the shock button; a second subject
then he shouted, “That’s enough, gentlemen!” (actually, a confederate), who was fully compliant,
The confederate, who had been watching the pro- did so. In this variation, 37 of the 40 people tested
cedure, then insisted, “Oh, no, let’s go on. Oh, no, (92.5%) obediently fulfilled their tasks without
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
236 C H A P T E R 8
Remote 65
Voice feedback 62.5
Heart problem 65
Proximity
40 92.5
Touch proximity 30 90 100
Low surveillance 20
Office building 47.5
Ordinary man 20
Authority as victim 0
Two peers rebel 10
Peer administers shock
Bring a friend 15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent
F I G U R E 8.2 Obedience rates (to 450 V) across variations in the Milgram experiments.
SOURCE: Data from Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, by Stanley Milgram. Copyright © 1974 by Stanley Milgram.
intervening. As Milgram explained, “They are their methods, ethics, and implications (Brannigan,
accessories to the act of shocking the victim, but Nicholson, & Cherry, 2015). Were the studies a
they are not psychologically implicated in it to the tour de force of scientific rigor? Some investigators,
point where strain arises” (1974, p. 118). after examining documents and records of the stud-
ies archived at the Yale University Library, have
And what if the participant and the learner were identified inconsistencies in Milgram’s descriptions
themselves members of a group? In a variation of the of the procedures (e.g., Perry, 2013). Others have
study conducted at the office-building site, Milgram challenged the work on moral grounds. Milgram’s
arranged for participants to bring a second person—a participants were not just put through a highly stress-
friend or colleague—with them to the study. The ful procedure without full consent, but they were
study proceeded as usual, but with one change: also deceived and, in some cases, never even told
Milgram coached the participant assigned to the learner that the shocks were a sham (Griggs, 2017). The
role to pretend he was receiving the shocks. In this work, too, raises important questions about human
unusual variation of the study, 85% of the participants nature, our capacity to resist the orders of malevolent
refused to continue before reaching the maximum authorities, and the degree to which the claim “I was
shock voltage, and they refused sooner in the shock only following orders” exculpates us from responsi-
sequence than in other conditions. As one explained, bility for harmful actions (Miller, 2016).
“I can’t continue doing this. I have to face this guy.
He’s my neighbor and I can’t go on with this” (Rochat Challenges and Replications Most people,
& Blass, 2014, p. 456; see Figure 8.2 for a summary). including both experts and laypersons alike, were
surprised by the level of obedience Milgram discov-
8-1c The Power in the Milgram ered in his research. When Milgram asked panels of
psychiatrists, college students, and middle-class
Situation adults to make predictions about how people
would act in his experiment, only a few predicted
Milgram’s studies of obedience continue to pro-
voke discussion, debate, and even disputes about
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 237
anyone would give more than 180 V. The high participants, such as the review of social and behav-
levels of obedience Milgram recorded prompted ioral science studies by institutional review boards,
some to suggest that the participants were not back to Milgram’s work (Schrag, 2010).
taken in by Milgram’s subterfuge. They suggested
that the participants knew that no shocks were Others note that Milgram’s subjects were
being administered, but they played along so as not mostly men, they were paid, and they lived at a
to ruin the study (Orne & Holland, 1968). Milgram’s time when people trusted authorities more than
research team, however, interviewed all the partici- they do now (Twenge, 2009). Yet, replications of
pants, and fewer than 20% challenged the reality of the study using different procedures and participants
the situation (Elms, 1995). Moreover, if participants have generally confirmed Milgram’s initial findings
saw through the elaborate duplicity, then why did (Blass, 2012). Many believe that the level of obedi-
they become so upset? According to Milgram, ence that Milgram documented in his laboratory
matches levels found in military, organizational,
Many subjects showed signs of nervousness in and educational settings (Fiske, Harris, & Cuddy,
the experimental situation, and especially upon 2004; Hinrichs, 2007; Pace & Hemmings, 2007).
administering the more powerful shocks. In a
large number of cases the degree of tension Other experts, when trying to explain why so
reached extremes that are rarely seen in socio- many people obeyed, pointed to the participants
psychological laboratory studies. Subjects were themselves, suggesting they were unusual individuals
observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their and unrepresentative in some way. Just as many peo-
lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their ple, when first hearing of the Guyana tragedy, won-
flesh. (1963, p. 375) dered, “What strange people they must have been to
be willing to kill themselves,” when people are told
The distress of the participants was so great that about Milgram’s findings, they react with the ques-
the publication of the study sparked a controversy tion, “What kind of evil, sadistic men did he recruit
over the ethics of research (Herrer, 2013). Many for his study?” Yet, by all accounts, Milgram’s parti-
trace improvements in the level of protection for cipants were normal and well-adjusted (see Blass,
1991, for an analysis). The people who took part in
Are People Still Obedient?
Many things have changed since Milgram conducted demanded to be released, and an experimenter who
his study, and one of those things might be obedience delivered well-rehearsed prods if participants balked.
to authority. Would people born in the second half of But Burger ended the study when participants
the twentieth century be so willing to obey an administered 150 V and appeared to be continuing
authority (Twenge, 2009)? on to the next set of word pairs. He also hired a
clinical psychologist who interviewed each potential
Milgram’s study can never be exactly replicated participant so as to eliminate anyone who might have
given the level of distress his participants experienced “a negative reaction to participating in the study”
and procedures that are now required to protect (Burger, 2009, p. 6).
subjects from harm. However, social psychologist
Jerry Burger (2009), by modifying aspects of the Mil- In the 1960s, 82.5% of the men continued past
gram situation that caused the greatest stress for the 150-V level. But in 2006, 70% of the men and
participants, was able to test 70 men and women in women Burger tested were similarly obedient—a
2006. Burger used a facsimile of the original shock decline, but not a statistically significant one. Women
machine (complete with the “Shock Generator, Type were just as obedient as men, and those subjects
ZLB, Dyson Instrument Company, Waltham, Mass. tested in a group with a confederate who refused to
Output 15 volts–450 volts” label on the side), an continue were only slightly less obedient (63.3%).
innocent male victim who cried out in pain and People are still obedient after all these years.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
238 C H A P T E R 8
Milgram’s study differed from one another in age, 8-2a Bases of Power
personality, and life experiences, and they also dif-
fered in their response to the experimenter’s orders. Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell concluded many
Some broke off at the first sign of trouble from the years ago that “the fundamental concept in social
learner, others obeyed until the learner stopped science is Power, in the same sense in which Energy
answering, and others continued until the shocks is the fundamental concept in physics” (1938/2004,
reached levels they felt were too dangerous. But p. 4). The conquest of one civilization by another,
age and occupation did not predict these variations. the persistence of social inequalities, revolutions and
rebellions, and the obedience of the members of the
The Riddle of Obedience If Milgram’s studies People’s Temple and Milgram’s subjects—all are
are methodologically sound and the obedience he inexplicable if one does not understand power.
observed does not reflect his subjects’ peculiarities, Russell added, however, that power takes many
then why did so many obey the orders of the forms, so to understand the “laws of social dynamics
authority? “It is not so much the kind of person a … it is necessary first to classify the forms of power”
man is as the kind of situation in which he finds (1938/2004, p. 6).
himself that determines how he will act,” explains
Milgram (1974, p. 205). The subjects had no power Social psychologists John R. P. French and
in the setting. The experimenter gave the orders, Bertram Raven’s (1959) theory of power bases
and the subjects followed those orders. Maybe they answers Russell’s challenge. French and Raven rec-
wanted to resist the commands of the experimenter, ognized that power is relational and rooted in
but like the hapless members of the People’s inequalities in control over resources and punish-
Temple, they could not. As we will see in the ments. When a person’s experience of positive
next section, those who control the bases of and negative outcomes depends on another person
power in a situation influence others, and those who is not similarly dependent in return, differ-
who do not are the targets of that influence. ences in power result. French and Raven identified
and differentiated the five forms of power shown in
8-2 SOCIAL POWER IN Figure 8.3: reward, coercive, legitimate, referent,
and expert power. Raven (1965, 2008), drawing
GROUPS on his subsequent studies of influence, added a
sixth base: informational power.
Milgram created a complex social situation in his
Yale laboratory. Those who entered into it were Reward Power Jones’s reward power was con-
pressured to act in ways that were inconsistent siderable because he controlled the allocation of both
with their values, and some yielded to this pres- impersonal and personal rewards. Impersonal rewards
sure. He succeeded in controlling others’ actions are material resources, such as food, shelter, protec-
to promote his own goals “without their consent, tion, promotions, wages, and awards. Personal
against their will, or without their knowledge or rewards are positive interpersonal reinforcements,
understanding” (Buckley, 1967, p. 186). But just
as Jim Jones did not use physical force to coerce his power bases Sources of social power in a group, includ-
followers into leaving their homes in the United ing one’s degree of control over rewards and punish-
States and joining him in Jonestown, Milgram’s ment, authority in the group, attractiveness, expertise,
experimenter did not resort to threats of violence and access to and control over information needed by
or punishment to extract high levels of obedience group members (originally described by John French
from participants. But both the Jonestown resi- and Bertram Raven).
dents and many of the Milgram subjects followed reward power Power based on control over the distribu-
orders. Why? tion of rewards (both personal and impersonal) given or
offered to group members.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 239
Reward Coercive Legitimate Referent Expert Informational
Promise of Threat of Right to Relationship Perceived Capacity to
positive, negative, require the based knowledge, reason,
desirable undesirable requested explain,
incentives consequences behavior (respect, skills, inform
attraction) abilities
F I G U R E 8.3 Six bases of power.
such as verbal approbation, compliments, smiles, and his orders, he was quick to punish them with beat-
promises of liking or acceptance. Both types of ings, solitary confinement, denials of food and water,
rewards are potent sources of power, particularly and long hours of labor in the fields.
during times of scarcity (Emerson, 1962). Money
and food, for example, are valued resources, but Coercive power derives from one’s capacity
they become a source of power when the rest of to dispense punishments, both impersonal and per-
the group is penniless and starving. Rewards that sonal, to others. Terrorists attacking other coun-
one controls exclusively are also more likely to tries, employers threatening employees with the
augment one’s power, so Jones power increased loss of pay or dismissal, and teachers punishing mis-
when he isolated the church members in Jones- chievous students with extra assignments are all
town (Cook, Cheshire, & Gerbasi, 2006). relying on impersonal coercive bases of power.
Disagreeing friends insulting and humiliating one
Ironically, when followers’ dependence on a another, the boss shouting angrily at his secretary,
leader increases, this dependence often triggers and religious leaders threatening members with loss
increases in respect, trust, and deference (van der of grace or ostracism derive their power from per-
Toorn, Tyler, & Jost, 2011). Dependence also sonal sources (Pierro, Kruglanski, & Raven, 2012;
increases the perceived value of rewards from those Raven, 2008).
who are powerful. A smile from Jim Jones, for
example, was far more rewarding than a smile from a Certain people consistently rely on coercion to
rank-and-file member. Researchers investigated this influence others, but most only turn to coercive
phenomenon by giving group members the oppor- power when they feel it is the only means they have
tunity to trade goods of equal monetary value with to influence others (Kramer, 2006). When individuals
other group members. Most were willing to pay who are equal in coercive power interact, they often
more for goods they received from a high-status learn over time to avoid the use of their power (Lawler
group member, and they considered those resources & Yoon, 1996). Group members also prefer to use
to be more valuable, important, and worth having. reward power rather than coercive power if both are
Because powerful individuals’ rewards were overva- available and they fear reprisals from others in the
lued by others, they did not need to expend as many group should they act in a coercive way (Molm,
of their resources to achieve the same level of success 1997). In consequence, and paradoxically, individuals
in the exchange as did those members with low in positions of authority who feel relatively powerless
power, their resources tended to grow rather than are more likely to use coercion than more powerful
diminish (Thye, 2000). individuals (Bugental, 2010).
Coercive Power Jones used threats and punish- coercive power Power based on the ability to punish or
ment as a means of exacting obedience from his fol- threaten others who do not comply with requests or
lowers. When members broke the rules or disobeyed demands.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
240 C H A P T E R 8
Obedience to Authority: Cooperation or Capitulation?
Milgram theorized that those participants who obeyed generate compliance, both in the original Milgram
entered into what he called the agentic state; as studies (Gibson, 2011) and in subsequent replications.
agents of a higher authority, they no longer thought Burger, for example, found that the majority of his
for themselves, but only carried out the experimenter’s participants continued onward after being told
orders no matter what the cost (Milgram, 1974). Sub- “Please continue,” but no one—not one—continued
sequent studies, however, offer an alternative after receiving the fourth, “you must go on,” prod
explanation—one based on cooperation instead of (Burger, 2009; Burger, Girgis, & Manning, 2011). Simi-
capitulation. The subjects, rather than viewing them- larly, in a clever replication conducted online (partici-
selves as subordinates taking orders from a superior, pants were required to say very mean things about
thought of themselves as collaborators working on a groups of people), obedience rates were lowest when
scientific study of learning. They identified more with reluctant participants were nudged with the com-
the researcher, rather than the learner, and it was that manding fourth prod rather than the more legitimate
identification that caused them to continue to admin- “the experiment requires you continue” prod (Haslam
ister shocks even when the learner protested (Haslam, et al., 2014). These findings lend support to an
Reicher, & Birney, 2014; Reicher & Haslam, 2011). engaged followership model: “participants’ willing-
ness to continue with an objectionable task is predi-
This reinterpretation of Milgram’s findings is cated upon active identification with the scientific
supported by the marked ineffectiveness of the fourth project and those leading it” (Haslam et al., 2014,
and final prod used by Milgram’s experimenter: p. 473). This explanation reframes Milgram’s study,
“You have no other choice: you must go on” (1974, suggesting participants did not cave in to the demands
p. 21). Unlike the first three prods, which implied the of an authority but instead were cooperative contribu-
shocks were necessary for scientific purposes, this prod tors to a scientific project.
was an order. And this order failed, consistently, to
Legitimate Power Individuals who have legiti- religious leaders, and he had received such honors
mate power have the socially sanctioned right to as the Martin Luther King Jr. Humanitarian Award.
ask others to obey their orders. The security per- When individuals joined the People’s Temple, they
sonnel at the airport telling a passenger to remove tacitly agreed to follow Jones’s orders.
her shoes, the professor waiting for the class to
become quiet before a lecture, and the minister Those who rely on reward or coercive power
interpreting the Gospel for the congregation are often find that their influence dwindles when their
powerful because they have the right to command control over resources diminishes. In contrast, those
others, and others are obligated to obey. Jones, for with legitimate power find that their decisions are
example, was the legitimate head of the People’s accepted, without resistance, by others in the group
Temple. He was an ordained minister; his work (Tyler, 2005). Members obey these legitimate
had been commended by many political and authorities because they personally accept the
norms of the group. Their obedience is not coerced
agentic state A psychological state that occurs when but voluntary, for it springs from an internalized
subordinates in an organized status hierarchy experience sense of loyalty to the group rather than the desire
such a marked reduction in autonomy that they are to gain resources or avoid harm. Even duly
unable to resist authorities’ orders (proposed by Stanley appointed or selected authorities will lose their
Milgram). legitimate power, however, if they consistently act
legitimate power Power based on an individual’s in ways that are viewed as unfair or they repeatedly
socially sanctioned claim to a position or role that cause harm to the group and its members (Lammers
includes the right to require and demand compliance et al., 2008). Those who engage in unethical
with his or her directives. behavior or fail to show proper respect for their
followers, for example, run the risk of losing the
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 241
members’ loyalty—and once loyalty is gone so is “Every charismatic authority … preaches, creates,
the willingness to obey (Tyler & Blader, 2003). or demands new obligations—most typically, by vir-
tue of revelation, oracle, inspiration, or of his own
Referent Power Who is the best-liked member will” (1956/1978, p. 243). Charismatic leaders,
of the group? Who is the most respected? Is there such as Jones, usually appear on the scene when a
someone in the group whom everyone wants to large group of people is dissatisfied or faces a stress-
please? The individual with referent power occu- ful situation. The leader offers these people a way to
pies the interpersonal center of the group. Just as escape their problems, and the masses react with
group members seek out membership in selective, intense loyalty.
desirable groups, so they identify with and seek
close association with respected, attractive group Expert Power Group members often defer to
members. The members of the People’s Temple and take the advice of those who seem to possess
were devoted to Jones—to the point where they superior skills and abilities. A physician interpreting
loved, admired, and identified with him. Many a patient’s symptoms, a local resident giving direc-
made financial and emotional sacrifices in the hope tions to an out-of-towner, and a computer techni-
of pleasing him. As one of his followers explained, cian advising a user—all transform their special
Jones “was the God I could touch” (quoted in knowledge into expert power.
Reston, 2000, p. 25).
As with most of the power bases identified by
The concept of referent power explains how French and Raven, a person does not actually need
charismatic leaders manage to exert so much con- to be an expert to acquire expert power; the person
trol over their groups (Flynn, 2010). Sociologist must only be perceived by others to be an expert
Max Weber first used the term charisma to (Kaplowitz, 1978; Littlepage & Mueller, 1997).
account for the almost irrational devotion that Researchers demonstrated the impact of perceived
some followers exhibit for their leaders. People expertise on influence by arranging for dyads to
often refer to a charming leader as charismatic, work on a series of problems. Half of the participants
but Weber reserved the term to describe the tre- were led to believe that their partner’s ability on the
mendous referent and legitimate power of the task was superior to their own, and the rest were told
“savior–leader.” Charisma originally described a that their partner possessed inferior ability. As the con-
special power given by God to certain individuals. cept of expert power suggests, people who thought
These individuals were capable of performing that their partners were experts accepted the partner’s
extraordinary, miraculous feats, and they were recommendations an average of 68% of the time,
regarded as God’s representatives on earth (Weber, whereas participants paired with partners thought to
1956/1978). Weber argued that charismatic leaders be inferior accepted their recommendations only 42%
do not have unique, wondrous powers, but they of the time (Foschi, Warriner, & Hart, 1985).
succeed because their followers think they have
unique, wondrous powers. Weber himself was Informational Power In 1965, Raven separated
struck by the charismatic leader’s power to demand out informational power from expert power:
actions that contradict established social norms: Group members can turn information into power
by providing it to others who need it, by keeping it
referent power Power derived from social relationships
between individuals, including identification with, expert power Power based on the belief that an indi-
attraction to, or respect for another person or group. vidual possesses superior knowledge, skills, and abilities.
charisma From the Greek xarisma (a divine gift of grace), informational power Power based on the potential use
the ascription of extraordinary or supernatural acumen, of informational resources, including rational argument,
ability, and value to a leader by his or her followers persuasion, or explanation.
(coined by Max Weber).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
242 C H A P T E R 8
What Are Your Bases of Power?
People differ in their degree of personal assertiveness— q Other members of this group are supposed to
across situations some people are more forceful than do what I ask them to do.
others. But French and Raven’s (1959) theory of
power bases traces power to its interpersonal sources q I am a recognized leader in this group.
and so is group specific: A person who is powerful in
one group may have relatively little power in Referent Power
another.
q Members do things for me because of our
Instructions: To examine the relationship between friendship.
power and the group processes that sustain that
power, from the many groups to which you belong, q I have built strong positive relationships with
identify the one where you are the most influential— the members of this group.
one where you can change the thoughts, actions, or
emotions of others in the group. Then put a check by q I am admired by many members of this group.
each item which accurately describes your experiences q The other members of the group respect or
in this group.
identify with me.
Reward Power
Expert Power
q The members appreciate it when I praise or
compliment them. q Members know I have strong skills and abilities.
q This group relies on my extensive background
q The members know that I can reward them.
and experience.
q I can give members the things they want. q I am considered to be an expert by others in
q I control the distribution of rewards that the this group.
members value. q Others regard me as skilled in ways that are
Coercive Power valued by this group.
q I can take the steps needed to end a person’s Informational Power
membership in this group.
q Members appreciate and accept my interpretations
q Members take my reprimands or criticisms very and suggestions.
seriously.
q Members listen to what I have to say.
q I can reduce or end members’ privileges and/or q Members rely on me to provide them with
benefits.
accurate, useful information.
q I can sanction, in a negative way, members q Members seek me out when they need
of this group.
information.
Legitimate Power
Scoring: If you checked three of the four indicators
q I hold a position of authority in this group. in any one set, then that base of power is secure in that
particular group. Remember, though, that power is rel-
q I have the right to require compliance with ative. Even though you may have checked many of the
my requests. boxes, if others in your group can check even more, they
may be more influential in this group than you are.
from others, by organizing it, increasing it, or even as the keepers of the group’s truths or secrets, and
falsifying it. Some individuals achieve informational these individuals must be consulted before the
power by deliberately manipulating or obscuring group makes a decision (Fine & Holyfield, 1996).
information or at least making certain that the People who share information with others can
information remains a secret shared by only a few achieve informational power, even by passing
group members. Other individuals are recognized unverified and, in some cases, private information
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 243
through the group’s “grapevine” (Kurland & the experimenter was a professional and knew what
Pelled, 2000). Individuals who pass along the latest he was doing? Using these items, the observers
gossip (personal and, in many cases, scurrilous infor- ranked the experimenter as higher on expert, legiti-
mation about others) or rumors (information that is mate, coercive, and informational power, but lower
potentially useful and relevant, but is unsubstanti- on reward power, and lower still on referent power.
ated) are using informational power to influence The experimenter adopted a very brusque manner
others (DiFonzo, 2008). during the study, so he did not seem particularly
likable, hence his low referent power. His stern,
8-2b Bases and Obedience no-nonsense manner, however, apparently made
him seem like an expert scientist whose orders
Was the experimenter in the Milgram study power- could not be disobeyed.
ful, as French and Raven define power? Even
though the experimenter was not an authority in a 8-2c Power Tactics
traditional sense—he was not formally identified as
the group’s leader and given an impressive title, such The French and Raven (1959) theory of power
as captain, president, director, or doctor—he did bases identifies and differentiates the six most com-
draw power from all six of the bases identified by mon sources of influence in groups, but they did
French and Raven (1959). His power to reward was not claim their list was exhaustive. When people
high, because he gave out the payment and also need to poke, prod, or prompt others into action,
because he was an important source of positive eva- their choice of power tactic (or compliance tactic)
luations; participants wanted to win a favorable is limited only by their ingenuity, self-regulation,
appraisal from this figure of authority. His demeanor and willingness to ignore social controls (Cialdini
was intimidating, and he controlled the machine that & Griskevicius, 2010).
could dispense punishment when a person failed.
Many participants also assumed that the experi- Types of Tactics Table 8.1 gives examples of some
menter had a legitimate right to control their actions of the ways people influence other people. These
and that the learner had no right to quit the study. influence tactics, however, are not interchangeable,
The participants also respected Yale University and for they differ in terms of their hardness, rationality,
recognized the importance of scientific research, so laterality, and social acceptability (Falbo & Peplau,
the experimenter had referent power. Very few par- 1980; Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998).
ticipants knew much about electricity, either, so they
considered the experimenter an expert. He also per- ■ Hard and soft tactics. Hard tactics are more
suaded them to continue by telling them that the coercive than soft tactics; they limit the “free-
study was important and that its findings would dom an influence recipient is allowed in
answer questions about how people learn. choosing whether or not to comply with a
request or a demand” (Pierro et al., 2012,
Social psychologist Thomas Blass (2000) con- p. 41). Bullying, enforcing or invoking standards,
firmed the power of the experimenter in the Milgram punishing, and delivering contingency-based
study by asking a group of unbiased observers to rewards are examples of hard tactics. Soft
review a 12-minute videotape of Milgram’s proce- tactics, in contrast, exploit the relationship
dures. The observers then ranked six possible reasons, between the influencer and the target to extract
derived from French and Raven’s power base theory, compliance. When individuals use such meth-
as explanations for why the participants obeyed. For ods as collaboration, socializing, friendships,
example, did Milgram’s experimenter have coercive
power? Did he “warn of negative consequences” power tactics Specific strategies used to influence
should people not obey (Blass, 2000, p. 42)? Did others, usually to gain a particular objective or advantage.
he have expert power? Did participants assume that
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
244 C H A P T E R 8
T A B L E 8.1 A Sampling of the Many Power Tactics People Use to Influence Other People in
Everyday Situations
Tactic Examples Tactic Examples
Apprise Instruct
• I point out what she will gain. • I teach him how to do it.
• I note the personal benefits he’ll receive. • I set an example.
Bully • I yell at him. Join forces • I get the boss to agree with me.
• I push him around. • I turn the group against her.
Claim • I let her know I’m an expert. Manipulate • I lie.
expertise • I rely on my experience. • I leave out important details.
Collaborate • I offer to help. Negotiate • I offer her a bargain.
• I provide assistance as needed. • I wheel and deal.
Complain • I gripe about all the work I have to do. Persist • I don’t take no for an answer.
• I grumble about having to study. • I reiterate my point.
Consult • I ask him to help me with the project. Persuade • I coax her into it.
• I get her involved in the work. • I convert him to my side.
Criticize • I point out her limitations. Promise • I promise to never do it again.
• I find fault with their work. • I offer to do some of his work for him.
Demand • I demand that the problem be solved. Punish • I fire her.
• I order her to continue. • I slap him.
Discuss • I give him supporting reasons. Put down • I insult him.
• We talk about it. • I say something like, “You are an idiot.”
Disengage • I give him the cold shoulder. Request • I ask him to do me a favor.
• I stop talking to her. • I tell her what I expect.
Enforce • I remind him about the rules. Reward • I increase his pay.
• I make it clear what the standards are. • I give her a present.
Evade • I change the subject when it comes up. Socialize • I make small talk for a while.
• I skip the meeting. • I ask about the family.
Fait • I just do it. Supplicate • I plead.
accompli • I don’t get anyone’s permission. • I beg humbly for permission.
Ingratiate • I flatter her. Threaten • I threaten legal action.
• I tell him that he might get fired.
• I compliment him on the way he looks.
Inspire • I appeal to her sense of fair play. Use humor • I try to make a joke out of it.
• I cheer him on. • I tell a funny story.
SOURCES: Drawn from various studies of influence, including Caldwell & Burger, 1997; Emans, Munduate, Klaver, & Van de Vliert, 2003; Falbo, 1977; Falbo &
Peplau, 1980; Instone, Major, & Bunker, 1983; Keshet, Kark, Pomerantz-Zorin, Koslowsky, & Schwarzwald, 2006; Kipnis, 1984; Wiseman & Schenck-Hamlin,
1981; Yukl & Michel, 2006.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 245
personal rewards, and ingratiation, they influ- Burger, 1997). Men and women also differ some-
ence more indirectly and interpersonally. Hard what in their choice of power tactics (Keshet et al.,
tactics are often described as harsh, forcing, or 2006). Men and women who supervised an ineffec-
direct, but they are not necessarily more pow- tive employee used both rewards and criticism, but
erful than soft tactics; threatening people with women intervened less frequently with a more lim-
exclusion from a group or public embarrass- ited range of tactics. Women promised fewer pay
ment may lead to substantially greater change raises and threatened more pay deductions than
than the threat of some deprivation or corporal men, and they were more likely to criticize subor-
punishment (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007). dinates (Instone, Major, & Bunker, 1983). The
sexes also differ in their use of power in more inti-
■ Direct, rational and indirect, nonrational tactics. mate relationships, for men tend to use bilateral and
Tactics that emphasize reasoning, logic, and direct tactics, whereas women report using unilat-
good judgment are rational tactics; bargaining eral and indirect methods (Falbo & Peplau, 1980).
and persuasion are examples. Other tactics—
the indirect ones—are uniquely subtle and People also choose different power tactics
difficult to detect. These tactics work by cre- depending on the nature of the group situation
ating a favorable cognitive and emotional (Yukl & Michel, 2006). A person who has high status
response in the targets of the influence attempt in a group that is already rife with conflict will use
and disrupting their capacity to think critically different tactics than an individual who is low in status
about what they are being asked to do. They and wants to minimize conflict. In a corporate setting,
may also rely on emotionality and misinfor- authorities rely on referent and expert power, but in
mation; ingratiation and evasion are both an educational setting, teachers may turn to reward
examples of such nonrational tactics. and punishment power (Krause & Kearney, 2006).
Who one is attempting to influence can also dictate
■ Unilateral and bilateral tactics. Some tactics are the choice of power tactic; for example, people report
interactive, involving give-and-take on the part using a variety of soft and hard methods to influence
of both the influencer and the target of the subordinates but, when dealing with superiors, they
influence. Such bilateral tactics include per- rely heavily on rational methods such as persuasion
suasion, discussion, and negotiation. Unilateral and discussion (Kipnis et al., 1984). People also shift
tactics, in contrast, can be enacted without the from soft to hard tactics when they encounter resis-
cooperation of the target of influence. Such tance (Carson, Carson, & Roe, 1993; Teppner, 2006).
tactics include demands, faits accomplis, eva- The interpersonal consequences of the use of these
sion, and disengagement. various types of influence methods will be considered
later in this chapter.
How People “Get Their Way” People vary in
their habitual use of one type of power tactic over The Power of Commitment Many compliance
another. When asked the question “How do you tactics exploit people’s desire to remain true to their
get your way?” more interpersonally oriented prior commitments and so act consistently over
people—those more concerned with being liked time and across situations. The foot-in-the-door
and accepted—showed a preference for soft, indi- technique, for example, works by prefacing a
rect, and rational power tactics (Falbo, 1997). major request with a minor one that is so inconse-
Those who espoused a Machiavellian, manipulative quential that few people would refuse to comply.
philosophy when dealing with others tended to use
indirect/nonrational tactics, as did those who scored foot-in-the-door technique Influencing a person by
lower in terms of agreeableness and emotional sta- extracting compliance to a small initial request before
bility (Butkovic & Bratko, 2007). Extraverts use a then making the second, more substantial, request.
greater variety of tactics than introverts (Caldwell &
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
246 C H A P T E R 8
What Is Brainwashing?
Interrogators often exploit behavioral commitment to tactics proved more effective. The prisoners were ini-
extract compliance from detainees. Chinese military tially asked to perform inconsequential actions, such as
personnel, for example, used the foot-in-the-door tac- copying an essay out of a notebook or answering some
tic in their so-called brainwashing methods during the questions about life in the United States. Once the
Korean War. They began by subjecting U.S. prisoners men agreed to a minor request, a more significant
of war to physical hardships and stressful psychological request followed. They might be asked to write their
pressures. The men were often fatigued from forced own essays about communism or discuss the problems
marches, and their sleep was disrupted. Their captors of capitalism. Each small concession led to a slightly
broke down the chain of command in these units by larger one, until the men found themselves collabo-
promoting nonranking soldiers to positions of author- rating with the Chinese. The Chinese rarely succeeded
ity, and friendships among the men were systemati- in permanently changing the men’s attitudes and
cally discouraged. values, but they did extract obedience to their
authority: Morale was poor and the men rarely tried to
Although the Chinese relied heavily on traditional escape (Schein, 1961; Segal, 1954).
methods of influence, such as punishment, compliance
Investigators exploited people’s behavioral commit- occasion, Jones had told the congregation that he
ment by asking home owners to post a large, unattrac- had poisoned the sacramental wine and that all
tive sign in their yards. Nearly all refused—unless this would be dead within the hour. He went so far as
major request had been preceded by a smaller one to plant confederates in the audience who feigned
(Freedman & Fraser, 1966). In general, two requests convulsions and death. He repeated this ceremony in
are superior to a single request, although such factors Jonestown, calling it the White Night. After enough
as the sex of the influencer and the amount of time that repetitions, the thought of suicide, so alien to most
elapses between the two requests moderate the power people, became commonplace in the group.
of the foot-in-the-door method (Beaman et al., 1983;
Dillard, 1991). 8-3 SOCIAL STATUS IN
Milgram, when he designed his procedures for GROUPS
studying obedience, may have unwittingly capital-
ized on behavioral commitment to increase compli- Jonestown was founded on principles of equality
ance. He did not ask participants to push a lever and social justice, but like most groups its members’
that would deliver 450 V to the learner at the outset rights, responsibilities, and privileges were deter-
of the study. Instead, he asked them only to give mined by their position in the group’s status hierar-
the learner a mild shock if he answered incorrectly. chy. As the analysis of group structure noted in
No one refused. Over time, however, the demands Chapter 6, the members of a newly formed group
escalated, and participants were unable to extricate may begin as equals, but before long, some mem-
themselves from the situation. Once they began, bers gain greater power, influence, and control over
they could not stop (Burger, 2014). others. And just as individuals have a need to be
included in groups, they also have a strong need
Jim Jones may have also capitalized on behav- to achieve status within these groups (Anderson,
ioral commitment to counter his followers’ natural Hildreth, & Howland, 2015). In this section, we
rejection of his order to take their own lives. Jones examine this status-organizing process, focusing on
did not suddenly order his followers to commit sui- the factors that determine status, personal qualities of
cide. Instead, he prefaced his request with months of the ones who seeks status, and biases in the status-
demands that increased in their intensity. Jones had allocation process.
talked about mass suicide even before the People’s
Temple moved to Guyana. On more than one
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 247
8-3a Claiming Status softly and pepper their comments with nervous gig-
gles are afforded less authority. Displays of emotion
The human brain is adept at detecting and proces- also signal differences in status. Group members
sing information about status. Perceivers notice the who seem angry are thought to be more influential
difference between people displaying signals of and are accorded higher status, whereas those who
dominance and deference (based on directness of seem sad are thought to be lower in status (see Hall
eye gaze and head tilt) in as little as 33 milliseconds et al., 2014).
(Chiao, 2010). People are also remarkably accurate
in their estimations of their own and others’ status People also signal their authority through their
within a group. Although individuals often overes- verbal communications. Those seeking status often
timate their own standing on valued social charac- initiate conversations and shift the discussion to their
teristics, their estimates of their status in the group own areas of competence. A person seeking high sta-
tend to match up well with other people’s appraisals tus would be more likely to (1) tell other people what
(Anderson & Brion, 2014). they should do, (2) interpret other people’s statements,
(3) confirm or dispute other people’s viewpoints, and
Status Signals All social animals know how to (4) summarize or reflect on the discussion (Stiles et al.,
communicate the message “I am in charge.” 1997). In a study group, for example, a high-status
Dominant chimpanzees chatter loudly at potential member may say, “I’ve studied this theory before” or
rivals, the leader of the wolf pack growls and bares “I think it’s more important to study the lecture notes
his teeth at low-ranking wolves, and the ranking than the text.” A low-status individual, in contrast,
lioness in the pride swats another with her paw. may lament that “I always have trouble with this sub-
Members of these social groups compete for sta- ject” or “I’m not sure I understand the material.” Status
tus, for the individual at the top of the seekers tend to dominate conversations and are quicker
hierarchy—the so-called alpha male or female— to voice their opinions. Group members also assert
enjoys greater access to the group’s resources. their authority over the group by interrupting other
These high-ranking members maintain their posi- speakers frequently (see Leary, Jongman-Sereno, &
tion by threatening or attacking low-ranking Diebels, 2014).
members, who in turn manage to avoid these
attacks by performing behaviors that signal defer- Who Seeks Status? Not everyone seeks power
ence and submissiveness. This system of domi- over others. Some members are content to be
nance and submission is often called a pecking rank-and-file members, equal in responsibilities
order because (at least in chickens) it determines and influence to most of the others in the group,
who will do the pecking and who will be pecked and do not desire to rise upward in the group’s
(Piazza & Castellucci, 2014). hierarchy. Other individuals seek only personal
power. They wish to control their own individual
Humans, too, compete for status in their outcomes and experiences, but they are not con-
groups. Humans rarely snarl at one another to signal cerned about controlling other’s outcomes (van
their status, but they do use such nonverbal cues as Dijke & Poppe, 2006). Some, however, strive for
a firm handshake, intense facial expressions, a power, and they pursue it across time, groups, and
relaxed, open posture, or an unsmiling countenance situations (Winter, 2010).
to let others know that they should be respected.
People also seek status by speaking clearly, loudly, People with a dispositional need for power, for
confidently, and directly, whereas those who speak example, tend to pursue status and prestige more
vigorously than others. They describe themselves
pecking order A stable, ordered pattern of individual as hoping to have power in the future: “I want to
variations in prestige, status, and authority among group have power in every aspect of my life” (Bennett,
members. 1988; Harms, Roberts, & Wood, 2007). The need
for power, measured when people are first hired for
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
248 C H A P T E R 8
Bullying: Harmless Teasing or Coercive Abuse?
Each day, as Erick boards the bus, Jonathan berates then, is not retaliation between parties in a dispute
him, making fun of his hair and clothes. No one will or conflict, but the mistreatment of a less powerful
sit with Erick for fear of being drawn into the abuse. person by someone with power. Bullying is also a
The staff at the clinic where Carol works deliberately group behavior. Victims are sometimes isolated and
circulate nasty rumors about her, and exclude her friendless individuals abandoned to their fate by
when they gather socially after work. Charlotte’s boss the rest of the group, but in many cases, groups of
would berate her so brutishly that it made the individuals are abused by groups of bullies. Similarly,
woman who worked at the desk next to Charlotte’s although bullies are often thought to be poorly
cry (Beers, 2012). adjusted individuals who are expressing anger by
picking on those who cannot defend themselves,
Bullying is a form of coercive interpersonal bullies are often relatively popular group members.
influence. Although originally considered to be a In schools, for example, boys who are bullies are
characteristic of children’s and adolescents’ groups, often members of high-status sports teams, whereas
bullying, mobbing, and harassment also occur in mil- girls who are bullies belong to high-status social
itary, business, and professional organizations cliques. They tend to be recognized as school leaders
(Branch, Ramsay, & Barker, 2013). Both males and and trend setters, but they are also disliked for
females bully, but they tend to do so in different the way they treat other people of lower status in
ways: Females are relationally aggressive, for they use the group (Vaillancourt, Hymel, & McDougall,
gossip, criticism, and exclusion against their victims. 2003). Bullying also involves more than just the
Males tend to use noncontingent punishment: they bully and the victim, as other group members are
treat people negatively for no reason (Hoel et al., drawn into the harmful bully–victim exchange
2010). Jim Jones was a bully. (Giacalone & Promislo, 2010). Because bullying is
rooted in both power dynamics and group dynamics,
Bullying signals a marked imbalance in the experts recommend organization- and group-level
power relationship between the bully and his or her interventions for preventing peer abuse (Olweus &
victim. The victim of abuse “has difficulty in defend- Limber, 2010).
ing himself or herself and is somewhat helpless
against” the bully (Olweus, 1997, p. 216). Bullying,
a large company, predicts their rise to positions of aggression, assertiveness, and toughness, all of
authority in the corporation’s management hierar- which improve one’s chances of besting others in
chy some 8–16 years later (McClelland & Boyatzis, contests of dominance (Rivers & Josephs, 2010).
1982). They are more likely to hold offices in However, testosterone’s effects are muted when
groups and organizations. As noted in Chapter 4, men are members of stable rather than contested
individuals who are strong in their need for power
are more likely to experience power stress when dominance hierarchies (e.g., McIntyre et al., 2011).
that need is thwarted (Fodor & Wick, 2009).
Also, the quest for power is linked to testosterone, Some individuals are more motivated to engage
which is the primary androgen that determines mas- fully in the politics of status-seeking in groups. One
culine sexual features, both physical and psychologi-
cal. (Women’s bodies produce testosterone, but at a measure, the Political Skill Inventory, includes such
substantially reduced level.) Testosterone predicts items as “I spend a lot of time and effort at work
networking with others,” “I am able to make most
bullying Repetitively teasing, ridiculing, provoking, or people feel comfortable and at ease around me,” and
tormenting others through various types of irritating, “I am good at building relationships with influential
harassing, or aggressive actions, such as name-calling, people at work” (Ferris et al., 2005, p. 149). Those
threats, insults, and physical injury. with political skills are more likely to be affable, like-
able, outgoing, proactive, and task-oriented; when
they seek to influence others, they are more likely
to succeed (Ferris et al., 2007).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 249
8-3b Achieving Status jury. In Jonestown, given the physically challenging
tasks the group faced in building a community in a
People’s status-seeking efforts will be for naught if the South American rain forest, strong, energetic indi-
group rejects them. This status-allocation process, viduals who were experienced in building and
unfortunately, is often unfair—individuals whose farming moved upward in the status hierarchy rela-
influence should be accepted are not always recognized tive to those who are not so skilled.
by the group, just as the group sometimes takes direc-
tion from people who are not qualified to lead. Diffuse status characteristics are more gen-
eral qualities that the members assume are relevant to
Expectation-States Theory Sociologist Joseph ability and evaluation. Sex, age, wealth, ethnicity, sta-
Berger and his colleagues developed expectation- tus in other groups, or cultural background can serve
states theory to explain how groups determine as diffuse status characteristics if people associate these
who will be granted status and who will not be. qualities with certain skills, as did the members of the
This theory assumes that status differences are People’s Temple. Age and spiritual wisdom were
most likely to develop when members are working both considered important diffuse status characteristics,
collectively in the pursuit of shared goals that they with older, more devout members gaining status. In
feel are important ones. Because the group seeks to other groups—those that value youth, for example—
use its resources to its best advantage, members the opposite might hold true (Oldmeadow, 2007).
intuitively take note of one another’s status character-
istics—personal qualities that they think are indica- Researchers have largely confirmed
tive of ability or prestige. Those who possess expectation-states theory’s prediction that indivi-
numerous status characteristics are implicitly identi- duals with positively evaluated specific status and
fied and permitted to perform more numerous and diffuse status characteristics usually command more
varied group actions, to provide greater input and authority than those who lack status-linked quali-
guidance for the group, to influence others by eval- ties (Wilke, 1996). In police teams, officers with
uating their ideas, and to reject the influence more work experience exercised more authority
attempts of others (Berger, Wagner, & Webster, than their less experienced partners (Gerber,
2014; Ridgeway & Nakagawa, 2014). 1996). Members of dyads working on a perceptual
task deferred to their partner if he or she seemed
Expectation-states theorists believe that group more skilled at the task (Foddy & Smithson, 1996).
members base their expectations on two types of People who are paid more are permitted to exert
status cues. Specific status characteristics are more influence over people who are paid less
indicators of ability at the task to be performed in (Stewart & Moore, 1992). When air force bomber
the given situation. On a basketball team, for exam- crews work on nonmilitary tasks, rank predicts
ple, height may be a specific status characteristic, influence (Torrance, 1954). Juries allocate more
whereas prior jury duty may determine status in a status to jurors who have previously served on
juries or who have more prestigious occupations
expectation-states theory An explanation of status dif- (Strodtbeck et al., 1957). The bulk of the research
ferentiation in groups, which assumes that group mem- also confirms the following causal sequence in sta-
bers allocate status to group members judged to be tus allocation: First, group member X displays spe-
competent at the task at hand and to group members cific and diffuse status characteristics. Second,
who have qualities that the members think are indicators
of competence and potential. diffuse status characteristic In status characteristics
specific status characteristics In status characteristics theory, general personal qualities, such as age, race, and
theory, task-specific behavioral and personal characteristics ethnicity, that people consider when estimating the rela-
that people consider when estimating the relative compe- tive competency, ability, and social value of themselves
tency, ability, and social value of themselves and others. and others.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
250 C H A P T E R 8
other members form positive expectations about minorities report more dissatisfaction about how status
X. Last, members permit X to influence them is allocated in groups (Hembroff, 1982). Women are
(Driskell & Mullen, 1990). less likely to be selected as leaders of their groups, and
they are more likely to be assigned to lower status
Status Generalization Because status in a group roles (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Women and minorities
is determined by both specific and diffuse status must put extra effort into their groups and reach
characteristics, groups do not always allocate status higher performance standards just to gain the same
fairly. Imagine, for example, a jury that includes level of respect and authority granted to less produc-
these three individuals: tive European American men (Biernat & Kobryno-
wicz, 1997; Foschi, 1996). Groups, failing to
■ Dr. Prof, a 40-year-old European American recognize women’s expertise, tend to underperform
woman who teaches in the School of Business when women, rather than men, have the expertise a
and who has written several books on task demands (Thomas-Hunt & Phillips, 2004).
management.
Solo Status These unfair status-allocation processes
■ Mr. Black, a 35-year-old African American are magnified when you are the only one in your
high school principal. group who is different from others. Solo status
causes you to feel the other members are categorizing
■ Dr. White, a 58-year-old European American you in terms of your social group and so are not
male physician who has an active practice. accepting you as a full member. In consequence,
you are less likely to identify with the group, you
Considerable evidence suggests that, when will not be as loyal to the group, and may feel your
selecting a foreman, a jury of middle-class European performance will be unfairly evaluated. You may also
Americans would favor Dr. White. Dr. Prof and expect that your contributions are devalued. These
Mr. Black, despite their specific status credentials, concerns are generally justified: Solo members are
may be disqualified from positions of status in the rarely allocated high status in groups (e.g., Biernat
group by their (completely irrelevant) diffuse status et al., 1998; Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2003).
characteristics. In contrast, Dr. White poses little
incongruence for the group if the group members These negative status effects often fade over time
unfairly consider advanced age, pale skin, an MD as groups revise their hierarchies as they recognize
degree, and upper-class social status to be positive the skills and abilities of previously slighted members
features (York & Cornwell, 2006). This phenome- and as solos learn how to cope with the challenges of
non is known as status generalization: Group status generalization (Johnson & Richeson, 2009).
members let general status (i.e., diffuse status) char- Women and minorities who communicate their
acteristics influence their expectations, even though involvement in the group to the other members
these characteristics may be irrelevant in the given tend to gain status more rapidly, as do those who
situation (Ridgeway, 2014). act in a group-oriented rather than a self-oriented
way (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). If a solo woman
Status generalization explains why women and in an otherwise all-male group remains actively
African Americans are given less status and authority involved in the group by asking questions, the nega-
in groups than men and European Americans, respec- tive effects of her solo status are eliminated (Fuegen
tively (Ridgeway et al., 2009). Women and racial
solo status The state of being the only group member
status generalization The tendency for individuals who is a representative of a specific social category in an
known to have achieved or been ascribed authority, otherwise homogenous group (e.g., a man in an all-
respect, and prestige in one context to enjoy relatively female group).
higher status in other, unrelated, contexts (e.g., a celeb-
rity who exercises influence in a group even though this
diffuse status characteristic is not relevant in the current
group context).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 251
Are Online Groups More Egalitarian?
When people meet offline in face-to-face groups to age, sex, and race can be kept private in online groups,
make decisions or solve problems, their impact on the and the computer-mediated format prevents the
final outcome is often a function of their status in the exchange of nonverbal signs of dominance and
group. Those who have risen to the top of the group’s authority. There can be no raised voice, no long stare,
hierarchy speak as much as 40%–50% of the time and no rolling of the eyes when members are con-
(Stephan & Mischler, 1952), even when the meeting is nected only by a computer. So, when group members
supposed to be a discussion. The remainder of the interact by email, forums, and discussion forums, indi-
speaking will be done by two or three other group viduals who tend to participate less in face-to-face
members, but these people will have higher status groups—or whose contributions in such groups are
than the rank-and-file members (Gibson, 2003). Those often ignored—contribute at much higher rates (e.g.,
at the bottom of the “speaking order” may say noth- Bazarova & Yuan, 2013; Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna,
ing at all during the course of a meeting. Contribu- 1991).
tions to the discussion also tend to be clustered. Once
individuals enter the discussion stream, they tend to Long-term online groups, however, still exhibit
concentrate their comments during periods of high signs of status differentiation. Participants, through
vocality, or megaturns (Dabbs & Ruback, 1987; Parker, the content of their messages, engagement, and style
1988). This pattern occurs, in part, because some indi- of communication (e.g., length of posts, use of emoti-
viduals are too slow to speak when the previous cons) lay claim to characteristics that define their place
speaker concludes, so they never manage to capture within the group (Walther, 2013). In some cases, group
the floor. The group gives the more influential mem- members may even be more influenced by irrelevant
bers more latitude when they are speaking (Bonito & diffuse status characteristics in online groups because
Hollingshead, 1997). they have no other information to use to guide their
perceptions of the other members. If all Ed knows
What happens when groups meet online rather about his partner in a discussion is that his or her name
than face to face? In many online groups, the effects is Jolina, then he may inevitably draw conclusions
of status on participation are muted, resulting in a about her personality and interests from her name
participation equalization effect (Hollingshead, alone (Spears, Lea, & Postmes, 2007). Online groups
2001b). Many of the cues that people implicitly use to may resist some of the biases that distort status allo-
allocate status to others are minimized when people cations in offline groups, but these groups, too, tend
interact via computers—a group member’s height, shift in time from equivalence to hierarchy.
& Biernat, 2002). External authorities can also undo Dominance and Cooperation Evolutionary the-
unfair status generalizations by explicitly stressing the ory suggests that the system of dominance and def-
qualifications of women and minorities or by train- erence in human groups is an adaptive one,
ing group members to recognize their biases (Ridge- designed to enhance survival by increasing group
way, 1989). Moreover, groups may reduce biases in coordination and decision making, improving
the allocation of status to their members by making defense, and providing a means to resolve conflict.
use of computer-based technology to make decisions A group that must move regularly in search of
and exchange information. food and water requires some means to determine
whose advice to take and whose advice to ignore.
8-3c Status Hierarchies and Stability When conflicts occur between members, someone
in the group must mediate the dispute, either by
Humans, like many social species, live in groups negotiating a peace or by requiring it through a
with organized systems of power relations. As show of force. When a group encounters a threat,
Milgram (1974, p. 124) concluded, “Each member’s the group that is organized will likely fare better
acknowledgement of his place in the hierarchy than the one that is not. Because the environment
stabilizes the pack.” in which human groups lived favored those with a
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
252 C H A P T E R 8
stable dominance hierarchy, modern humans are behaviors. But what if group members act in dom-
instinctively prepared to accept, understand, and inant, firm, directive ways—issuing orders, taking
even prefer status differences. So long as the charge, giving advice? Such behaviors would tend
authority is motivated to advance the interests of to evoke submissive responses from the others. Peo-
the group, those lower in the status hierarchy ple also report feeling more comfortable when inter-
prosper by cooperating with those of higher status acting with someone who displays complementary
(see, e.g., Anderson & Willer, 2014; Cheng & rather than similar reactions. Group members who
Tracy, 2014; von Rueden, 2014). display signs of submissiveness when talking to some-
one who seems powerful are better liked, as are
Interpersonal Complementarity The natural- those who take charge when interacting with docile,
ness of dominance hierarchies is in evidence when submissive individuals (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003).
people join with several others in a “leaderless” The interpersonal complementary hypothesis thus
group. Even when no explicit instructions are pro- predicts that (1) positive behaviors evoke positive
vided, within minutes such groups form status hier- behaviors and negative behaviors evoke negative
archies that all members can accurately describe behaviors and (2) dominant behaviors evoke submis-
without having ever explicitly discussed who will sive behaviors and submissive behaviors evoke dom-
lead and who will follow (Keltner et al., 2010). inant behaviors (Sadler & Woody, 2003).
Leaderless groups do not stay leaderless for long.
This tendency translates into a small-group version Researchers put this hypothesis to the test by
of sociologist and political theorist Robert Michels’ arranging for young women to work, for a short period
(1915/1959) iron law of oligarchy—the rule of of time, with a partner who was trained to enact a
the many by the few. particular behavioral style. When the partner enacted
a dominant, leading style, she exuded confidence and
This shift from status homogeneity to hierarchy authority. In some cases, she added a degree of friend-
results, in part, from the behavioral complementar- liness to her dominance, frequently intervening to
ity of dominance and deference. According to the keep the group working. In others, she was dominant,
interpersonal complementarity hypothesis, but less friendly; she stressed her superiority and auton-
each member’s action tends to evoke, or “pull,” a omy, and her self-confidence bordered on self-
predictable set of actions from the other group absorption and conceit. In other conditions, she acted
members (Carson, 1969). If, for example, an indi- in more submissive, self-effacing ways. Rather than
vidual seems agreeable, pleasant, and cooperative, take charge, she would seem timid, uncertain, passive,
the other group members would tend to react in and inhibited (Strong et al., 1988).
kind: They would behave in positive, friendly ways.
Friendly behaviors are reciprocated by friendly The videorecordings of the sessions revealed
clear evidence of complementarity. Participants
iron law of oligarchy The principle of political and who were paired with a dominant confederate
social control that predicts that, in any group, power is acted submissively; they acquiesced, behaved pas-
concentrated in the hands of a few individuals (an oligar- sively, and showed respect for their partner. Only
chy) who will act in ways that protect and enhance their rarely did a participant respond in a dominant man-
power (described by Robert Michels). ner when faced with a dominant interaction part-
interpersonal complementarity hypothesis The pre- ner. Conversely, if the confederate behaved in a
dicted tendency for certain behaviors to evoke behaviors docile manner, the participants tended to take
from others that are congruous with the initial behavior, charge by acting in a dominant fashion—strong evi-
with positive behaviors evoking positive behaviors, neg- dence of the power of complementarity.
ative behaviors evoking negative behaviors, dominant
behaviors evoking submissive behaviors, and submissive Hierarchy and Harmony Hierarchy is not all
behaviors evoking dominant behaviors. gain without cost. Individual’s whose status is low
in groups sometimes fail to perform to their full
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 253
capabilities, because their low-level status undercuts create disunity in the group and undermine its produc-
their motivation and cognitive functioning (Kishida tivity. Groups too often fail to extend respect and def-
et al., 2012). High-status group members often erence to those who deserve it. Sometimes exploitive,
exceed their authority, and cause far more harm self-serving individuals manage to secure substantial
than good for their groups (Smith, Larimer, et al., influence within the group, and, when they do, the
2007). As the final section of this chapter warns, entire group suffers or, as in the case of the People’s
excessive and unfair differences in the distribution Temple, perishes. Sometimes, the power process can
of power within a group can lead to a wide range of disrupt, rather than facilitate, group functioning.
negative consequences.
8-4a Changes in the Powerholder
A group whose hierarchy of authority is stable,
however, will be more productive than one with Probably for as long as humans have joined
unsettled status ranks. To test this hypothesis experi- together in groups, they have puzzled over the
mentally, researchers manipulated groups’ status struc- nature of power and its influence on those who
tures by carefully distributing people who differed in have it, those who lack it, and those who seek it
their levels of testosterone into groups. Testosterone, as (Kipnis, 1974). In their tragedies, the Greeks dra-
noted earlier in the chapter, is associated with one’s matized the fall of heroes, who, swollen by past
tendency to seek influence over others. So the accomplishments, conceitedly compared themselves
researchers created three kinds of groups, expecting to the gods. Myth and folklore are replete with tales
groups with all high-testosterone members to be of the consequences of too much power, as in the
more unstable ones in comparison to (a) groups with case of Icarus, whose elation at the power of flight
just one high-testosterone, low-testosterone, and caused his own death. Although some celebrated
average-testosterone participants and (b) groups with the liberating effects of power, others spoke of its
all low-testosterone participants. As they anticipated, corruptive side effects. As Lord Acton warned,
levels of conflict were much higher in the high- “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power cor-
testosterone groups, with members reporting problems rupts absolutely.”
communicating and connecting to each other. Pro-
ductivity was also lower in these groups, for groups Priming Power Power is, in part, a state of
with a mix of high-, average-, and low-testosterone mind—a feeling of authority rather than authority
members outperformed both the all-high- and all- per se. Some individuals who occupy positions of
low-testosterone groups. These researchers verified authority and influence report that they feel pow-
these results in a second study where they manipulated erless and without any control over events that
power psychologically rather than biologically. They transpire in their lives. Yet, other individuals, who
created groups with different hierarchies by prompting face situations that seem to be those they cannot in
some members to feel more or less powerful. Given any way influence and control, report feeling very
the consistency of these results, the researchers con- powerful and in charge (Anderson & Galinsky,
cluded hierarchy “enhances rather than undermines 2006). A sense of power also depends on the situa-
group effectiveness” (Ronay et al., 2012, p. 669). tion; if you win an election, are appointed to a
position of influence in an organization, or are
8-4 THE METAMORPHIC granted membership in a high-status group, in all
likelihood, you will experience a feeling of height-
EFFECTS OF POWER ened power that comes from the circumstances
(Keltner et al., 2008). A sense of power can also
The system for organizing status in human groups is be triggered in more subtle ways. Environmental
not a perfect one. Individuals sometimes engage in or cognitive cues can prime a sense of power by
dominance competitions that are so disruptive they activating preexisting beliefs, concepts, or memories
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
254 C H A P T E R 8
of experiences relevant to power. College students (powerholders), or at least, feel powerful, act, feel,
meeting in a professor’s office act in more powerful and think differently than individuals who feel they
ways if they are seated in the professor’s chair are powerless.
behind the desk facing out into the room than
those seated in the chair reserved for visitors (Chen, ■ Power and action. Power increases activity levels,
Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001). prompting people to take action rather than
remain passive. Powerholders are usually the
The Paradoxical Effects of Power Social psy- busiest people in the group or organization.
chologist Dacher Keltner and his colleagues (2003, They are proactive; they would rather speak
2008, 2016), synthesizing previous analyses of both first during a debate, make the first move in a
power and motivation, theorize that power— competition, or make the first offer during a
having power, using power, even thinking about negotiation (Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld,
power—leads to psychological and interpersonal 2007). In one study, researchers first asked
changes for both those who have power and some people to think back to a time when they
those who do not. Their approach/inhibition had power over other individuals. Others
theory recognizes that most organisms display one thought of a time when they had little power.
of two basic types of reactions to environmental They were then left to wait for the next phase
events. One reaction, approach, is associated with of the study at a table positioned too close to an
action, self-promotion, seeking rewards and oppor- annoying fan blowing directly on them. Some
tunities, increased energy, and movement. The sec- of the participants just put up with this irrita-
ond reaction, inhibition, is associated with reaction, tion, but others took steps to solve the prob-
self-protection, avoiding threats and danger, vigilance, lem: They moved the fan or turned it off. As
loss of motivation, and an overall reduction in activity. predicted, 69% of the individuals who recalled
Significantly, the approach/inhibition model suggests a time they were powerful removed the
that power increases approach tendencies, whereas bothersome fan, compared to only 42% of less
reductions in power trigger inhibition. Power acti- powerful participants (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, &
vates people—it causes them to experience increases Magee, 2003).
in drive, energy, motivation, and emotion—and often
leads to positive consequences. The powerful can ■ Power and emotion. Powerful people tend to
bring their heightened energy, clearer insights, and experience, and express, more positive emotions
positive emotions to bear on the issues facing the than those who are lower in power. Power-
group and help the group overcome difficulties and holders usually feel good about things—their
reach its goals. But power, and the activation it brings, moods are elevated, they report higher levels of
also has a dark side, for it can create a Jim Jones or an such positive emotions as happiness and satisfac-
Adolf Hitler as often as a Mahatma Gandhi or an tion, and they even smile more than low-power
Abraham Lincoln. group members (Berdahl & Martorana, 2006;
Watson & Clark, 1997). Power is also associated
Power’s Positive Effects Power influences those with optimism about the future, apparently
who wield it. Individuals who are powerful because more powerful individuals tend to focus
their attention on more positive aspects of the
approach/inhibition theory An integrative concep- environment (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006).
tual analysis of the transformative effects of power that Powerful people seek rewards more actively than
finds power to be psychologically and behaviorally acti- people without power who are motivated to
vating but the lack of power inhibiting (posited by avoid negative outcomes (Keltner, Gruenfeld, &
Dacher Keltner and his colleagues). Anderson, 2003). Some evidence even suggests
that powerful people cope more effectively with
stress because they are positively challenged,
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 255
rather than threatened, by difficult circumstances conformity pressures that influence less pow-
(Scheepers et al., 2012). erful people (Kraus, Chen, & Keltner, 2011).
■ Power and goal-striving. Powerful individuals Power’s Negative Effects These consequences
exhibit more intense and resilient goal-striving. of power, in terms of action orientation, emotions,
When working toward a goal that is illusive, and judgmental tendencies, can also be liabilities.
they are able to maintain high levels of moti-
vation, for power is associated with increased ■ Power and risk-taking. Powerful people are proac-
levels of self-regulation—provided they are tive, but in some cases their actions are risky,
working at tasks that they feel are appropriate inappropriate, or unethical (Emler & Cook,
ones for the purposes and procedures of the 2001). Some individuals, driven by their need for
given situation (DeWall et al., 2011). In a work power, overstep the boundaries of their authority
setting, for example, they plan more task- or engage in inappropriate actions. If they feel
related activities, unless their role requires them that they have a mandate from their group or
to be sensitive to other individuals’ needs and organization, they may do things they are not
experiences. In such circumstances, the goal- empowered to do (Clark & Sechrest, 1976).
striving orientation of the powerful prompts They are, in some cases, not just optimistic, but
them to be more empathic and prosocial (Côté overly optimistic, for they assume the group can
et al., 2011; Guinote, 2008; Schmidt Mast, accomplish more in a given amount of time than
Jonas, & Hall, 2009). is rationally possible (Weick & Guinote, 2010).
■ Power and cognitive functioning. Power facilitates ■ Power and emotion. Powerful people may be
executive cognitive functions by enhancing happier, but they often generate negative emo-
attentional focus, decision-making, planning, tional reactions in their subordinates, particularly
and goal-selection (Smith et al., 2008). Power when there is disagreement and conflict in the
seems to sharpen mental acuity to a degree, group (Fodor & Riordan, 1995). In a study of
helping the powerful to selectively focus on dyads, those with more power than their partner
important information and reducing their dis- reported feeling positive emotions such as hap-
tractibility (Guinote, 2007). When researchers piness, pride, and amusement. Their partners,
tracked the brain functioning of people work- unfortunately, reported more anger, fear, tension,
ing in a group solving intellectual problems the and sadness (Langner & Keltner, 2008). When
high-status members displayed (a) increased people in work settings are asked to identify the
blood oxygenation in the prefrontal cortex sources of their stress and dissatisfaction, the
over time, indicating increased mental activity number one cause reported is powerful people:
and (b) decreased oxygenation in the amygdala, bosses, managers, and supervisors.
suggesting decreases in fear and nervousness.
This pattern of neuronal change was reversed ■ Power and empathy. Powerful people often
for lower status members (Kishida et al., 2012). misjudge, misunderstand, and even derogate
their subordinates. Powerholders can be dis-
■ Power and influence. Power insulates individuals, cerning judges of those who work for them,
to a degree, from the influence of others. but often only when their personal success
Powerful people are more likely to act on the depends on recognizing the strengths and
basis of their own personal preferences. When weaknesses of subordinates (Overbeck and
people are primed by thoughts of power, their Park, 2001). Power tends to weaken one’s
public statements and actions are more social attentiveness with the result that power-
authentic in the sense that they correspond to ful people have a more difficult time under-
their private beliefs and dispositions. Powerful standing other people’s point of view (Galinsky
people feel freer to express their ideas and resist
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
256 C H A P T E R 8
4.6 ■ Power and self-satisfaction. The successful use of
power as a means of controlling others can lead
Listener’s compassion 4.4 to self-satisfaction, unrealistically positive self-
evaluations, and overestimations of interper-
4.2 sonal power (Galinsky, Jordan, & Sivanathan,
2008). When social psychologist David Kipnis
4.0 (1974) asked participants if their subordinates
were performing well because of (1) the
3.8 workers’ high self-motivation levels, (2) their
manager’s comments and suggestions, or (3)
3.6 their desire for money, the high-power man-
agers believed that their workers were only in
3.4 it for the money (which the manager could
Low-power listener control). The low-power managers believed
that the workers were “highly motivated.”
3.2 High-power listener Other studies have also revealed this tendency
for powerful individuals to assume that they
3.0 High themselves are the prime cause of other peo-
Low ple’s behavior (Kipnis et al., 1976). Power-
holders tend to (1) increase the social distance
Talker’s distress between themselves and nonpowerful indivi-
duals, (2) believe that nonpowerful individuals
F I G U R E 8.4 The relationship between the listen- are untrustworthy and in need of close
er’s compassion and the talker’s distress for people who supervision, and (3) devalue the work and
are low and high in power. Low-power people respond ability of less powerful individuals (Kipnis,
with more compassion as the talker becomes more dis- 1974; Strickland, Barefoot, & Hockenstein,
tressed. For high-power people, their initially somewhat 1976). This tendency is all the more pro-
higher levels of compassion decline as the talker becomes nounced when powerholders use harsh rather
more distressed. than soft tactics. This reevaluation of self and
others also occurs when powerholders use
SOURCE: van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., van der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, methods that are not congruent with their
J., & Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye base of power. Individuals with expert power
to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19, 1315–1322. who use soft power tactics, or people with
legitimate power who use harsh power tactics,
et al., 2006). Researchers documented the reevaluate themselves and their targets less
pernicious effects of power by arranging for than those who use power tactics that do not
two people to discuss an experience that caused match their power base (Klocke, 2009).
them emotional pain and suffering. During and
after the conversation, the researchers tracked ■ Power and coercion. Powerful people also tend to
participants’ feelings of compassion, using both use their power to influence others even when
physiological measures and self-reports, as they a display of power is unnecessary. Kipnis (1974)
listened to their partner’s outpouring of emo- examined this tendency by arranging for
tional angst. As expected, people who did not advanced business students to participate as
describe themselves as powerful and influential managers in a simulated manufacturing com-
became more and more distressed themselves pany. Some had considerable power, in that
when their partners became more upset as they they could award bonuses, cut pay, threaten and
related their experience—their emotions were
relatively synchronized. Powerful people, in
contrast, did not respond emotionally to their
partner’s distress, and their levels of compassion
declined as their partner’s became more trou-
bled (see Figure 8.4). These findings suggest
that power may insulate the powerful from
feeling troubled by the harm they inflict on
others (van Kleef et al., 2008).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 257
actually carry out transfers to other jobs, give difference, they do not continue to seek more and
additional instructions, and even fire a worker, more status. Power is not addictive or so alluring
but others could not. Kipnis controlled the level that people are never satisfied with the level of
of productivity of the fictitious workers (all power they currently enjoy (van Dijke & Poppe,
performed adequately), but powerful managers 2007). In some cases, however, the experience of
nonetheless initiated roughly twice as many power is so positive—energizing, emotionally satis-
attempts at influence as the less powerful man- fying, psychologically stimulating—that power-
agers. Moreover, power determined the power holders may become preoccupied with seeking
tactics managers used—the powerless ones relied power, driven by a strong motivation to acquire
on persuasion, whereas the powerful ones greater and greater levels of interpersonal influence
coerced or rewarded their workers. Other (McClelland, 1975, 1985; Winter, 1973). They
studies have yielded similar support for the seek power, not because they can use it to achieve
idea that people with power tend to make their goals, but because they value power per se.
use of it, but the magnitude of this effect Hence, once such people attain power, they take
depends on many other factors (Fiske & steps to protect their sources of influence.
Berdahl, 2007).
8-4b Reactions to the Use of Power
■ Power and ethics. When individuals feel pow-
erful, they sometimes treat others unfairly, Humans, like many social species, are willing to accept
particularly if they are more self-centered guidance from other members of their group. How-
rather than focused on the overall good of the ever, in some cases, power does not just include
group (Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001). power with people and over people, but also power
Some individuals (primarily men) associate against people. Powerholders can influence, some-
power with sexuality, so when they are times dramatically, the outcomes of those who have
empowered, they engage in inappropriate little power, prompting them to do things they would
sexual behaviors, including sexual harassment rather not. How do people respond—behaviorally,
(MacKinnon, 2003). This tendency, termed cognitively, and emotionally—when the directives
the Bathsheba syndrome, takes its name of authorities conflict with the goals they have set
from the biblical story of David and Bath- for themselves (Sagarin & Henningsen, 2016)?
sheba. King David is smitten by Bathsheba,
the wife of one of his generals, and he seduces Reactions to Hard Influence Tactics Approach/
her. David compounds his moral failure with inhibition theory suggests that individuals who find
one misdeed after another, until he eventually themselves without power, relative to others, avoid
orders Bathsheba’s husband killed. A power- rather than approach. They not only lack resources,
holder acting immorally is not, apparently, a but they are dependent on others for the resources
new phenomenon in human societies (Ludwig that they need. They therefore tend to display more
& Longenecker, 1993). negative affect, they are sensitive to threats and punish-
ments, and they follow closely the dictates of the norms
Power and Power Seeking In small, stable of the group (Keltner et al., 2003). In general, how-
groups, individuals in positions of authority wish ever, these effects of power are more pronounced
to maintain their status relative to those lower in when the powerholder uses hard (e.g., punishment,
the hierarchy, but once they maintain this relative sanctions, nonpersonal rewards) rather than soft (per-
sonal rewards, referent power) influence methods.
Bathsheba syndrome The tendency for high-status Harsh tactics generate a range of negative emotions,
members to claim unfair and inappropriate privileges including hostility, depression, fear, and anger, whereas
and honors, including predacious sexual activities. those influenced by softer methods tend to reciprocate
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
258 C H A P T E R 8
with cooperation (Fiske & Berdahl, 2007; Pierro, other low-power members of the group, they are
Cicero, & Raven, 2008). Group members are also more likely to join with them in a revolutionary
more likely to resist an authority who uses coercive coalition that opposes the powerholder (van Dijke
influence methods and asks the group members to & Poppe, 2004; Haslam & Reicher, 2012). In one
carry out unpleasant assignments (Yukl, Kim, & study of group rebellion, two group members
Falbe, 1996); this resistance may cause the power- worked under the direction of a leader who was
holder to turn to even more negative forms of influ- appointed to that post because he or she had out-
ence (Youngs, 1986). Hence, although coercive scored them on a bogus test of ability. The leader
powerholders may be successful in initial encounters, then proceeded to keep more than half of the
influence becomes more difficult in successive meet- money earned by the group, giving each participant
ings as the group’s anger and resistance to pressure less than one-fourth. If the leader had personally
grow. Groups will, however, tolerate the use of coer- decided how to apportion payment, 58% of the par-
cive methods when the group is successful (Michener ticipants rebelled by forming a coalition with the
& Lawler, 1975), the leader is trusted (Friedland, 1976), other low-status participant. If the leader was not
and the use of such tactics is justified by the group’s responsible for the payment scheme, only 25%
norms (Michener & Burt, 1975). revolted (Lawler & Thompson, 1978, 1979).
Coercion and Conflict The conflict created by Identification and Conversion Both Milgram’s
coercive influence can disrupt the entire group’s participants and the People’s Temple members did as
functioning. Studies of classrooms, for example, indi- they were told, but the two groups differed in one
cate that many teachers rely heavily on coercion, but crucial respect: Most of Milgram’s participants strug-
that these methods cause rather than solve disciplin- gled to withstand the authority’s pressure, for they
ary problems (Kounin, 1970). Coercive tactics, such believed that the learner should not be held against
as physical punishment, displays of anger, and shout- his will. Many of Jones’s followers, in contrast, zeal-
ing, not only fail to change the target student’s ously followed his orders. They did not strain against
behavior but also lead to negative changes in the his authority; they had converted to his way of think-
classroom’s atmosphere (Kounin & Gump, 1958). ing (Darley, 1995; Lutsky, 1995; Staub, 1989, 2004).
When misbehaving students are severely repri-
manded, other students often become more disrup- Social psychologist Herbert Kelman (1958, 1961,
tive and uninterested in their schoolwork, and 2006) identified three basic reactions that people dis-
negative, inappropriate social activity spreads from play in response to coercive influence (see Figure 8.5).
the trouble spot throughout the classroom. This dis- In some cases, the powerholder only produces
ruptive contagion, or ripple effect, is especially strong
when the reprimanded students are powerful mem- Compliance Identification Internalization
bers of the classroom status structure or when com-
mands by teachers are vague and ambiguous. Public Conformity Private
conformity motivated by acceptance of
Resistance and Rebellion In some cases, group
members may rebel against an authority who they without desire to the other’s
consider to be unfair, incompetent, or both (Ciulla internal, imitate and beliefs,
& Forsyth, 2011). They may escape the power- private please the
holder’s region of control or apply influence in acceptance values, and
return. Members contend against those in power as other goals
individuals, particularly when they feel that others in
the group have more power than they do. But when F I G U R E 8.5 Kelman’s compliance–
members feel a sense of shared identity with the identification–internalization theory of conversion.
revolutionary coalition A subgroup formed within the
larger group that seeks to disrupt or change the group’s
authority structure.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 259
compliance—the group members do what they are Eventually, the recruits freely agree to make personal
told to do, but only because the powerholder demands sacrifices for the group, and these sacrifices prompt a
it. Privately, they do not agree with the powerholder, further consolidation of their attitudes (Baron, 2000;
but publicly they yield to the pressure. Like Milgram’s Baron, Kerr, & Miller, 1992). Once recruits reach the
participants, they obey only when the powerholder consolidation stage, they have fully internalized the
maintains surveillance. The next phase, identification, group’s ideology and goals.
occurs when the target of the influence admires and
therefore imitates the powerholder. When group Destructive Obedience In both the Milgram
members identify with the powerholder, their self- experiment and at Jonestown, power led to
image changes as they take on the behaviors and char- destructive obedience, as group members failed to
acteristics of the person with power. Many members of question the authority’s motivation, interpretations,
the People’s Temple admired Jones and wanted to and orders. For example, Jack Washington, a par-
achieve his level of spirituality. They obeyed his orders ticipant in Milgram’s experiment, administered all
because they identified with him. the shocks up to 450 V with barely a hesitation.
When later asked why he followed orders, he
Identification, if prolonged and unrelenting, can said, “I merely went on. Because I was following
lead to the final stage—internalization. When internal- orders. I was told to go on. And I did not get a cue
ization occurs, the individual “adopts the induced to stop” (Milgram, 1974, p. 50).
behavior because it is congruent with his value system”
(Kelman, 1958, p. 53). The group members are no Milgram’s concept of agentic shift, noted ear-
longer merely carrying out the powerholder’s orders; lier in the chapter, maintained that individuals who
instead, their actions reflect their own personal beliefs, feel powerless also feel they are not responsible for
opinions, and goals. Even if the powerholder is not their own actions. They feel “responsibility to the
present, the group members will still undertake the authority” but “no responsibility for the content of
required actions. Extreme obedience—such as the actions that the authority prescribes” (Milgram,
occurred with Jonestown, the murder of millions of 1974, pp. 145–146). Like Jack Washington, who
Jews by the Nazis during World War II, the My Lai was just “following orders” when he shocked the
massacre, and suicidal cults—often requires internaliza- screaming learner, many individuals who have little
tion. The group members’ actions reflect their private power in the group assume that they are supposed
acceptance of the authority’s value system (Hamilton & to carry out the orders of the authority without
Sanders, 1995, 1999; Kelman & Hamilton, 1989). questioning those orders. They no longer feel that
they are in control of their own actions and become
Kelman’s three-step model of conversion willing cogs in the group machine, carrying out the
explains how groups convert recruits into fervent orders of an authority without considering their
members over time. Cults, for example, insist that implications or questioning their effects (Hinrichs
the members adopt the group’s ideology, but in the et al., 2012; Kelman & Hamilton, 1989).
early stages of membership, they only require compli-
ance. New recruits are invited to pleasant group func- Obedient individuals’ claims of reduced
tions where they are treated in a warm, positive way. responsibility may be more than self-serving
Once they agree to join the group for a longer visit, attempts to avoid blame for following, rather than
the veteran members disorient them by depriving resisting, a malevolent leader. In two studies,
them of sleep, altering their diet, and persuading researchers arranged for pairs of participants to
them to join in physically exhilarating activities. The take turns harming each other. In the first, when
recruits are usually isolated from friends and family to in the “agent” role the participant could take
prevent any lapses in influence, subjected to lectures, money from the “victim.” But in the second
and asked to take part in group discussions. Compli- study, the agent could earn additional money if
ance with these small requests is followed by greater she delivered an electric shock to the “victim.” In
demands, as with the U.S. prisoners of war in Korea. some cases, the agent was free to make her own
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
260 C H A P T E R 8
choice: to take money or deliver a shock. But, in Prisoners, on the other hand, were supposed to
the coercion condition, the experimenter ordered accept this control and try to get through the expe-
the agent to harm the victim. Participants in both rience as easily as possible by obeying all the prison’s
the free choice and coercion conditions harmed rules. Participants who refused to obey these norms
their partner, but only those subjects in the coer- were pressured by the other participants to bring
cion condition exhibited a bias known to be asso- their behavior back in line; nonconformity was
ciated with a reduced sense of agency: they tended not tolerated. Zimbardo concluded that his study
to misjudge the time interval between their actions “made it evident that initially our guards were
and its consequences. And even more telling, the ‘good apples,’ some of whom became soured
participants in the second study, when their neural over time by powerful situational forces” (2007,
responses were monitored, displayed reduced levels p. 329). Zimbardo calls the tendency for people
of brain activity in areas associated with voluntary to be corrupted by negative group environments
actions. The researchers concluded “people who the Lucifer effect.
obey orders may subjectively experience their
actions as closer to passive movements than fully 8-4c Who Is Responsible?
voluntary actions” (Caspar et al., 2016, p. 585).
A church member obediently swallowing poison.
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his A soldier executing innocent civilians. A worker
colleagues also documented the consequences of installing substandard building materials. A partici-
coercive authority in their well-known Stanford pant in an experiment giving an innocent victim
Prison Study. Zimbardo, seeking to simulate a painful shocks. On first hearing about such events,
prison environment, randomly assigned male stu- people sometimes fall prey to the fundamental attri-
dent volunteers to the role of prison guard or pris- bution error (FAE): They blame the personalities of
oner. The study was scheduled to run for two the individuals rather than the powerful group
weeks, but was ended early due to the extreme processes at work that forced them to obey—
reaction of the subjects. The prisoners seemed liter- even though a closer, more informed analysis of
ally to become prisoners; although some rebelled, the situation would reveal the power pressures
the majority became withdrawn and depressed. The the members faced (Reeder, Monroe, & Pryor,
guards also became increasingly tyrannical and arbi- 2008). In extreme instances, when a powerholder
trary in their control of the prisoners. Some of their inflicts tremendous suffering and misfortune on
actions crossed the line between intimidation and people, the group members blame themselves for
abuse. They threatened the prisoners with physical their misery. The members of the People’s Temple
injury, ran hooded prisoners into walls as they may have felt so deserving of their fate that they
walked them to the bathrooms at night, and forced chose to suffer rather than escape suffering. These
them to engage in feigned sexual activities. Zim- feelings of self-condemnation may account for
bardo himself sank deeply into the role of superin- their willingness to take their own lives (Clark,
tendent, worrying over possible “prison breaks” 1971; Fanon, 1963).
and autocratically controlling visiting procedures
(Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973; Zimbardo, Yet obedience is not a reflection of the nature
Maslach, & Haney, 2000; Zimbardo, 2004, 2007). of the individuals in the group, but an indication of
Zimbardo concluded that the participants were Lucifer effect The transformation of benign individuals
overwhelmed by the “power of the situation.” All into morally corrupt individuals by powerful, but malev-
of the participants had a general idea of the power olent, social situations; named for the biblical character
differences between the role of a prisoner and the Lucifer, an angel who fell from grace and was trans-
role of a guard. As the study progressed, to be a formed into Satan (proposed by Phillip Zimbardo).
guard meant controlling all aspects of the prison
and protecting this control with force if necessary.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 261
the power of the group itself. By controlling key actions are not the volitional products of individual
evil-doers. Instead, they are in some sense societal
bases of power, using power tactics, and exploiting products, in which a complex series of social forces
the nature of the subordinate–authority relation- interact to cause individuals to commit multiple
ship, authorities exert great influence on group acts of stunning evil” (Darley, 1992, p. 204).
members. As John Darley explained, “Many evil
CHAPTER REVIEW
What are the limits of an authority’s power? authority—the agentic state—but recent
research suggests they identified with the
1. Social power is a group-level process, for it is experimenter and the project’s scientific
predicated on differences in members’ capacity goals.
to influence one another.
■ Weber’s (1956/1978) concept of charisma
2. Milgram (1974) tested people’s obedience to an suggests that certain leaders exert their
authority who ordered them to give painful influence by relying on legitimate power
and potentially harmful electric shocks to a and referent power.
confederate (no shocks were actually given).
■ Blass (1990) confirmed empirically that
■ A majority (65%) obeyed fully; those who Milgram’s experimenter derived power
did not often stopped when the learner from all six bases.
retracted his consent to participate (at 150
V; Packer, 2008a). 2. Power tactics are specific methods, such as per-
suasion, bargaining, and evasion, that people
■ Obedience varied as Milgram manipulated use to attain the goal of influencing others.
aspects of the setting, including the harm,
proximity, research location, surveillance, ■ These methods vary in a number of ways
legitimacy, and groups. (hard–soft, rational–irrational, lateral–
bilateral), with individuals selecting particular
3. Milgram’s studies suggest that obedience is tactics depending on their personal charac-
common in hierarchically organized groups, teristics and the nature of the group setting.
such as those found in military, educational,
and organizational settings. ■ One tactic, which may explain the levels
of obedience in the Milgram experiment
■ Critics noted methodological flaws and sug- and Jonestown, is the foot-in-the-door tech-
gested that the personal characteristics of nique: prefacing major demands with
Milgram’s participants prompted them to minor, inconsequential ones.
obey, but the findings have been replicated
by other researchers (e.g., Burger, 2009). ■ The so-called “brainwashing” methods
used by Chinese military personnel during
What are the sources of power in groups? the Korean War relied on various methods
of influencing, including behavioral
1. French and Raven’s (1959) theory of power commitment.
bases emphasizes six sources of power—reward
power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent What are the sources of status in groups?
power, expert power, and informational power.
1. The status structure in a group defines differences
■ Milgram suggested obedient individual in power and influence.
believed themselves to be agents of the
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
262 C H A P T E R 8
■ Members strive for status in groups; the Does gaining power have a transformative effect on
resulting pecking order defines who is people?
dominant and who is submissive.
1. People differ in the disposition level of personal
■ Personal characteristics, such as the need power, but situational factors can also prime a
for power and political skill, predict those sense of power.
individuals who are more likely to strive
for power over others. 2. The idea that “power corrupts, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely” is consistent with
■ Bullying is the use of coercive influence Keltner’s (2016) approach/inhibition theory,
against another, less powerful person. It can which suggests that power activates the
involve physical contact, verbal abuse, approach response system whereas the loss of
exclusion, or other negative actions. power inhibits actions.
2. Group members’ perceptions of one another 3. The positive effects of power include increased
also determine status. Berger’s expectation-states activity levels, more positive emotions, consis-
theory argues that group members allocate status tent goal-striving, enhanced executive func-
by considering specific status characteristics and dif- tioning, increased authenticity, and lower levels
fuse status characteristics (Berger et al., 2014). of conformity.
3. When status generalization occurs, group mem- 4. The negative effects of power include an increased
bers unfairly allow irrelevant characteristics, tendency to act in a risky or inappropriate way, a
such as race, age, or ethnicity, to influence the negative impact on others’ emotional states, loss of
allocation of prestige. perspective-taking, the tendency to misjudge
others, and increased self-satisfaction.
■ Status allocations are particularly unfair
when individuals who are members of ■ Kipnis’s (1974) studies of the metamorphic
stereotyped minority societal groups are effects of power found that people who are
also underrepresented in the group itself, given coercive power will use this power,
with the most extreme case being solo and that once it is used, the powerholders
status (being the only individual of that tend to overestimate their control over
category in the group). others and devalue their targets.
■ In some online groups, the effects of status ■ The Bathsheba syndrome occurs when
on participation are muted, resulting in a authorities use their power to exploit
participation equalization effect. others, particularly in a sexual way.
4. Status differences in groups may be an evolved ■ Powerholders may become so enamored
adaptation. of power that they are preoccupied with
gaining it and using it.
■ In leaderless groups, status organizing pro-
cesses rapidly create status differences. How do those without power react when power is
used to influence them?
■ Michel’s (1915/1959) iron law of oligar-
chy predicts the emergence of status 1. Approach/inhibition theory predicts that indivi-
differences. duals who do not feel powerful will display more
negative emotion and reduced motivation. These
■ Individuals tend to respond submissively negative effects are more likely when power-
when they confront authority, and holders use coercive influence methods.
they tend to behave assertively when
they encounter someone who is sub- 2. Coercive methods have been linked to a
missive (the interpersonal complementarity number of dysfunctional group processes,
hypothesis).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
POWER 263
including increases in conflict as more group ■ When individuals become part of an
members rebel against authority (the ripple organized hierarchy, they tacitly agree to
effect), disrupted interpersonal relations, and follow the leader’s orders. They also
revolutionary coalitions. experience a reduction of responsibility
and reduced agency.
3. Kelman’s (1958) compliance–identification–
internalization model describes a sequence ■ Zimbardo’s simulated prison study was
of increasing private acceptance of terminated prematurely when participants
an authority’s beliefs, values, and became too dominant and too submissive.
perspectives.
5. People who blame obedience on the individuals
4. Milgram’s (1974) theory of the agentic state in the situation may be displaying the funda-
traces obedience back to the nature of the mental attribution error (FAE), which underes-
authority–subordinate relationship. timates the power of group-level processes.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: The People’s Temple ethical controversies, theoretical exten-
sions, and practical implications.
■ Our Father Who Art in Hell: The Life and
Death of Jim Jones by James Reston, Jr. (2000) Source of Power in Groups
relies on the analysis of over 800 hours of
recordings, as well as personal interviews ■ “Interpersonal Stratification: Status,
with Jonestown survivors, to develop a full Power, and Subordination” by Susan T.
analysis of the People’s Temple. Fiske (2010b) is an extensive analysis of the
social psychology of status structures and
■ A Thousand Lives: The Untold Story of Hope, influence in groups.
Deception, and Survival at Jonestown by Julia
Scheeres (2011) draws on FBI documents ■ The Psychology of Social Status, edited by Joey
and audiotapes to describe the experiences T. Cheng, Jessica L. Tracy, and Cameron
of individuals who lived and died in Anderson (2014), reviews the most recent
Jonestown. work examining status in small groups,
including current theoretical perspectives,
Obedience to Authority neurological substrates, and implications for
leadership and group performance.
■ “Milgram at 50: Exploring the Enduring
Relevance of Psychology’s Most Famous Metamorphic Effects of Power
Studies,” edited by S. Alexander Haslam,
Arthur G. Miller, and Stephen D. Reicher ■ The Power Paradox by Dacher Keltner
(2014), is a special issue of the Journal of Social (2016) is an evidence-based analysis of
Issues with 14 in-depth articles examining how people get power, how they use it,
every facet of Milgram’s provocative analysis and how it can in some cases corrupt them.
of the power of an authority.
■ Power: Past Findings, Present Considerations,
■ “Why Are the Milgram Experiments Still and Future Directions by Adam D. Galinsky,
So Extraordinarily Famous--and Contro- Derek D. Rucker, and Joe C. Magee
versial?” by Arthur G. Miller (2016) (2015) surveys the most recent work
unpacks many issues surrounding Mil- examining power and influence, with a
gram’s studies of obedience, reviewing focus on theories and models that consider
power to be an interpersonal process.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Leadership
9C H A P T E R
CHAPTER OUTLINE CHAPTER OVERVIEW
9-1 Leading Groups Groups often require guidance as they strive to
9-1a Leadership Defined reach their objectives, but who will consistently
9-1b What Do Leaders Do? coordinate, motivate, and sustain the group? The
leader. A leader can fundamentally shape the
9-2 Leadership Emergence group’s future, but the person who takes that
9-2a The Leader’s Traits role—whether formally recognized or emerging
9-2b Intellectual and Practical Skills more gradually during the course of the group’s
9-2c The Leader’s Look interactions—is not always the individual who
should be the leader. If asked, “What one thing
9-3 Theories of Leadership Emergence would you change to turn an inept group into a
9-3a Implicit Leadership Theory productive one?” most people would answer, “The
9-3b Social Identity Theory leader.”
9-3c Social Role Theory
9-3d Terror Management Theory ■ What is leadership?
9-3e Evolutionary Theory
■ Who will emerge as a leader?
9-4 Leader Effectiveness
9-4a Styles and Situations ■ Why do some lead and others follow?
9-4b Leader–Member Exchange Theory
9-4c Participation Theories ■ Why are some leaders more effective than
9-4d Transformational Leadership others?
9-4e The Future of Leadership
Chapter Review
Resources
264
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 265
Charlotte Beers: Transforming Groups through Leadership
The ten were all high-ranking executives at Ogilvy & to share their ideas. Previous planning sessions often
Mather Worldwide: the sixth-largest advertising got little accomplished because the corporate culture
agency in the world. They had gathered, at the con- emphasized agreement over conflict. The Vienna
ference room table in a nice hotel in Vienna, Austria, meeting was different, however. Beers needed the
to solve a problem: Why was their once thriving group to come together and agree on two things: the
company now nearly always described as “belea- need to change and the direction the company would
guered?” Each one was the director, executive offi- take to make that change a successful one. As the day
cer, or chair of one of the company’s many corporate went on some argued that the basic problem, and key
branches, and each one had been handpicked by fix, was morale: The company didn’t need restructur-
Charlotte Beers, the company’s new chief executive ing, it needed confidence. Others emphasized the
officer (CEO). Beers had been hired just a few months company’s failure to understand its strengths, and to
earlier. Most considered her to be a surprising choice: build on those strengths. And some stressed the com-
She was the first woman to lead such a large agency pany’s sprawling corporate structure, and its offices
and the first CEO brought in from outside the exec- located all over the world.
utive ranks of Ogilvy. But she had the reputation of
being a turnaround expert: Someone who could But the group got its work done. As the meeting
breathe new life into the 5.4 billion, 8,000-employee ended, many wondered where the next year would
company. take the company, but they did not wonder about
their leader: Beers was energetic, influential, informal,
Beers had personally invited each one of them to but also deadly serious. As the group adjourned and
the meeting, basing her choice on just one criterion: each leader set to work restructuring the company,
These were the people in the company who believed reinventing its mission, and building on its strengths,
that Ogilvy must change if it was to survive in a highly their cynicism and suspicion changed into optimism
competitive marketplace. These executives had never and enthusiasm: “Charlotte felt right. She fits” they all
met before, but as the day began they weren’t ready thought (Ibarra & Sackley, 2011, p. 8).
Group dynamics are the influential interpersonal pondered the mysteries examined in this chapter:
processes that take place in groups, and one of the “What do leaders do?” “Who should we select to
most influential of these processes is leadership. be our leader?” and “Why are some leaders much
Egyptian hieroglyphics written 5,000 years ago more effective than others?”
include the terms leader and leadership (Bass,
2008). The great epics, such as Beowulf, the Song of 9-1 LEADING GROUPS
Roland, and the Odyssey, are filled with the exploits
of leaders of small bands of adventurers. Leadership, When Charlotte Beers took over as their leader,
like sex, language, and groups, make the anthropol- Ogilvy was good, but not great. An international
ogist’s list of universals that have been identified as company, with divisions operating all over the
common to all cultures and all civilizations, without world, it was positioned to become the number
exception (Brown, 1991). Presumably, ever since the one choice for companies looking to expand their
first protohuman told the rest of the group “We’re brand to new markets. Beers believed that Ogilvy’s
doing this all wrong, let’s get organized” people have strengths weren’t being fully exploited, so she
focused on the basics—structure, strategy, systems,
leadership Guidance of others in the pursuit of individ- and staff—but she did so with an energetic, opti-
ual and collective goals, often by directing, coordinating, mistic, “fearless” style. As she explains, “I came to
motivating, supporting, and unifying their efforts; also, Ogilvy very clear that my role as CEO and chair-
the ability to lead others. man was to be a change agent, to help this grand
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
266 C H A P T E R 9
agency right itself” (Beers, 2002, p. 217). As the ■ Leaders are “individuals who significantly
company’s leader, she guided the organization in influence the thoughts, behaviors, and/or
its work, from disorganization and inefficiency to feelings of others” (Gardner, 1995, p. 6).
effectiveness. She was not just the manager, CEO,
or chairman of the board: She was Ogilvy’s leader. This influence process, however, can take a
variety of forms. Leaders sometimes use direct
9-1a Leadership Defined methods of influence: they issue directives, orders,
instructions, and so on. Military leaders can and do
The political scientist James McGregor Burns issue orders to subordinates who are duty-bound
(1978) has asserted that leadership is “one of the to follow those orders. Politicians speak directly to
most observed and least understood phenomena their constituents, explaining their policies and
on earth” (p. 2). But much of the mystery vanishes asking for support. Team leaders identify the sub-
when leadership is examined from a group perspec- tasks that must be completed by the group as it
tive. Certainly, leaders sometimes influence others pursues its goals, and then they assign different
across time and great distances, but more typically members of the team to each subtask. But leaders
leadership occurs in a context: and that context is also influence their followers in more subtle and
the group. For example Beers, when she first took less perceptible ways. They put in place organiza-
over as the CEO of Ogilvy, sent a message directly tional procedures and structures that constrain
to all 8,000 employees expressing confidence in the their followers’ actions in ways that often go
company, and that change was “going to happen unnoticed. Their persuasive messages convince lis-
fast” (Ibarra & Sackley, 2011, p. 6). But she did teners not by presenting rational arguments and
much of her work leading teams of directors, staff, information, but by appealing to their emotions
and executives who were responsible for managing and unconscious motivations. And some lead by
the work of the company. Yes, leadership can be setting an example that they hope others might
considered to be a set of abilities, a position of follow. Leaders don’t just order, demand, and
authority, or a shared vision, but fundamentally: require but also persuade, cajole, and guide.
Leadership is an influence process in which group
members guide one another in the pursuit of indi- A distinction is often drawn between leadership
vidual and collective goals. Leadership is a process and other forms of influence in groups and organiza-
of influence rather than a position or office; a coop- tions, such as management and supervision. Leaders
erative, reciprocal relationship rather than a coer- may hold supervisory positions in groups, but holding
cive one; and a goal-oriented, generative process a position does not always translate into leadership;
rather than an oppressive one. there are many bosses, supervisors, and managers
who are not leaders. Conversely, many individuals
Leadership Is an Influence Process Experts have in groups and organizations who do not hold formal
defined leadership in many ways, but most defini- positions of authority are leaders, for they influence
tions return to one core quality—influence: others as they pool their efforts in the pursuit of shared
goals. Leadership is more about process, rather than
■ Leadership is the “successful influence by the position (see Mintzberg, 2009).
leader that results in the attainment of goals by
the influenced followers” (Bass, 2008, p. 19). Leadership Is a Cooperative, Reciprocal
Relationship Even though the leader’s path to
■ ”Leadership is the process of influencing others influence is sometimes rife with conflict, leadership
to understand and agree about what needs to processes are based more on cooperation rather
be done” (Yukl, 2013, p. 7). than coercion. People who use domination and
intimidation to influence others—whether they
■ Leadership is “a process whereby an individual are kings, presidents, bosses, or managers—maybe
influences a group” (Northouse, 2013, p. 5). powerful, but they are not necessarily leaders.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 267
Leaders do not force others to follow them, but about the quality of their leaders—surveys that
instead the leader–follower relationship is a coop- ask employees to identify the worst thing about
erative, consensual one. When people join forces their job find these complaints tend to converge
to achieve an outcome, some must step forward on the leader—but they seek out better leaders
and guide the group toward its goals and others rather than avoiding them altogether (Hogan &
must accept that guidance. In general, leaders Kaiser, 2005). Most people do not just accept
appear in groups when (1) members feel that the need for a leader but appreciate the contribu-
success on the group task is within their reach, tion that the leader makes to the group and its
(2) the rewards of success are valued, (3) the outcomes (Friedman & Saul, 1991).
task requires group effort rather than individual
effort, and (4) an individual with previous expe- Leadership Is a Goal-Oriented Process Leader-
rience in the leadership role is present in the ship is an adaptive, goal-seeking process, for it orga-
group (Guastello, 2007). nizes and motivates group members’ attempts to
attain personal and group goals (Parks, 2005). Stud-
A group that is facing a stressful situation—such as ies of leaders in all kinds of group situations—flight
a potential failure or danger—is also likely to embrace crews, politics, schools, military units, and religious
a leader’s guidance (Goethals & Hoyt, 2011). Indivi- groups—all suggest that groups prosper when
duals who take pride in their independence may find, guided by good leaders. Groups, when discussing
when difficult circumstances overtake them, that they solutions to problems, tend to spend too much
are relieved to find a leader who is ready to take time discussing information shared by many
charge of the group and coordinate its reaction to members—unless a leader is present in the group
the threat. Such circumstances can even cause mem- who controls the group’s tendency to focus on
bers to see leadership potential in people where none shared information (Larson et al., 1996). When a
exists. Members of troubled groups, compared to company gets a new CEO, its performance tends
more tranquil groups, exaggerate the potential of pos- to climb (Jung, Wu, & Chow, 2008). Newly
sible leaders. They even misremember crucial details, appointed leaders who inspire and excite members
tending to recall their prospective leader as having with fresh ideas and strategies can spur the group on
performed any number of leader-consistent behaviors to great achievements and successes (Kaiser, Hogan,
and forgetting any past behaviors that conflict with & Craig, 2008). Groups, as noted in Chapter 7,
their image of the person as a suitable leader. Thus, often fail to help in emergency situations. But
members do not resist having a leader; instead, they what happens if a leader is present in the group?
actively create leaders both interpersonally and psy- In one study of the bystander effect, only 35% of
chologically (Emrich, 1999). the groups helped a person in need, but when the
group had a leader, 80% of the groups delivered
Followers do, however, sometimes struggle assistance (Baumeister et al., 1988).
against their leader’s influence, particularly when
that influence takes the form of heavy-handed Unfortunately, although effective leaders facili-
influence or the leader acts to promote his or tate the attainment of positive benefits both for the
her own outcomes at the expense of the group members of the group and the group itself, not all
(Avolio & Locke, 2002). Yet most people prefer leaders are effective. Leaders sometimes take their
to be led rather than to be leaderless. When in group in directions it should not go. They act to
groups, people must often coordinate their actions promote their own personal outcomes and overlook
with those of others in the group, and leaders are the good of the group. Leaders manipulate followers,
often the ones in the group who are responsible persuading them to make sacrifices, while the leaders
for ensuring that harmonization (see Chapter 8). enjoy the rewards of their power and influence.
Group members are usually more satisfied and They push their agendas too hard, their groups
productive when their groups have leaders (Ber- obey their demands, and only later do all realize
kowitz, 1953). Group members often complain
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
268 C H A P T E R 9
Do Leaders Make All the Difference?
Leaders significantly influence their group’s dynamics, When a team fails, those in charge often replace the
but sometimes people think that leaders do every- group’s leaders, for they assume that a different
thing. In Western cultures, in particular, people assume leader could have rescued the failing team. When
that leaders are so influential that they, and they people give all the credit for a group’s success to the
alone, determine their group’s outcomes. This roman- leader or blame him or her for a failure, they over-
ticized view of leaders as rescuers and heroes has look the contributions of the other group members.
been aptly termed the romance of leadership (Meindl, Leaders are influential, but few leaders deserve all
Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). the blame for their group’s failures and fewer
still are heroes who can fairly claim the lion’s share
This romance of leadership ignores both the lim- of credit for their group’s achievements (Bligh,
ited influence wielded by most leaders and the many Kohles, & Pillai, 2011).
other factors that influence a group and its dynamics.
their mistakes (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Such leaders 80% of the variability in followers’ ratings could be
are influential—but in a negative way. explained by a two-factor model of leadership:
9-1b What Do Leaders Do? ■ Task leadership focuses on the group’s work and its
goals. To facilitate the achievement of group
Charlotte Beers was hired to lead Ogilvy, and her goals, the leader initiates structure, sets standards
official title was Chairman of the Board and Chief and objectives, identifies roles and assigns mem-
Executive Officer. But what did Beers do as a leader? bers to those roles, develops standard operating
What behaviors define the role of a leader? procedures, defines responsibilities, establishes
communication networks, gives evaluative feed-
A multinational corporation demands differ- back, plans activities, coordinates activities, pro-
ent things of a leader than does a study group or poses solutions, monitors compliance with
a flight crew, yet certain behaviors regularly define procedures, and stresses the need for efficiency
the leadership role across a wide variety of groups. and productivity (Lord, 1977; Yukl, 2013).
To identify these consistencies, researchers at Ohio
State University (see Fleishman, 1953) first devel- ■ Relationship leadership focuses on the interper-
oped a list of hundreds of types of behaviors typical sonal relations within the group. To increase
of military and organizational leaders—initiating socioemotional satisfaction and teamwork in
new practices, providing praise, interacting infor- the group, the leader boosts morale, gives
mally with subordinates, delegating responsibili- support and encouragement, reduces interper-
ties, representing the group, integrating group sonal conflict, helps members to release nega-
action, and so on. They then refined the list by tive tensions, establishes rapport, and shows
asking members of various groups to indicate concern and consideration for the group and its
how many of these behaviors their leaders dis- members (Lord, 1977; Yukl, 2013).
played. Using factor analysis, they identified clus-
ters of related behaviors that were frequently used Subsequent studies of leaders in many different
to describe leaders. These analyses suggested that contexts have repeatedly confirmed the two-factor
romance of leadership The tendency to overestimate two-factor model of leadership A descriptive model
the amount of influence and control leaders exert on of leadership, which maintains that most leadership beha-
their groups and their groups’ outcomes. viors can be classified as either performance maintenance
or relationship maintenance.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 269
What Are the Two Sides of Leadership?
Leaders must keep the group moving forward, but they must also make sure the group stays together. The Ohio
State researchers developed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) to measure these two sides of
leadership: task and relationship leadership.
Instructions. How do you act when you are leading others? Pick from the list below those behaviors that you
think you would likely perform if leading a group.
Task leadership Relationship leadership
q I schedule work to be done. q I do things to make it pleasant to be a member of
q I see to it that the work of group members is the group.
coordinated. q I am easy to understand.
q I let group members know what is expected q I find time to listen to group members.
q I look out for the personal welfare of individual
of them.
q I assign members to particular tasks. group members.
q I emphasize the meeting of deadlines. q I am friendly and approachable.
Interpretation. People tend to favor one of these two facets when leading groups—some people are natu-
rally task-focused and others are more relational (Schriesheim & Eisenbach, 1995). Which set of items seems more
consistent with your personal approach to leadership: task or relationship? (The items are paraphrased from the
LBDQ, Halpin, 1957, pp. 4–6.)
model. Although the labels vary—task-oriented Her leadership at Ogilvy is consistent with
versus relational-oriented (DeRue et al., 2011), work- leadership substitutes theory, which maintains
facilitative versus supportive (Bowers & Seashore, 1966), that substitutes for leadership obviate the need to
production-centered versus employee-centered (Likert, provide task or relational support to the group
1967), administratively skilled versus relations-skilled members (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). In some cases,
(Mann, 1965), and performance versus maintenance (Mis- something about the group members may reduce
umi, 1995)—the two basic clusters emerge with great their need for task, relational, or both task and rela-
regularity (Hamlin & Hatton, 2013). tional leadership. For example, experienced, profes-
sional, and well-trained members may need little in
Leadership Substitutes The two-factor model the way of task leadership. In other cases, aspects of
assumes that leaders, despite their widely varying the task and the group or organizational setting may
methods and styles, tend to do two basic things substitute for leadership. If the group is highly
when they lead others—they coordinate the work cohesive and the members are providing all the
that the group must accomplish and they attend to support to each other they need, relational leader-
the group’s interpersonal needs. But these two forms ship becomes less important, just as a task that is
of leadership, though commonplace, are not needed highly structured or routine will negate the need
in every leadership situation. Beers, for example, spent for task structuring (Dionne et al., 2005).
much of her time initiating structure: planning, strat-
egizing, organizing, and coordinating the activities of leadership substitutes theory A conceptual analysis of
the company’s many units. She was a source of inspi- the factors that reduce or eliminate the need for a leader
ration for others, but because of the high level of pro- (substitutes) or prevent the leader from dispatching his or
fessionalism, she did not need to boost members’ her responsibilities (neutralizers).
commitment to the group’s goals.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
270 C H A P T E R 9
Other features of the members, the task, or the Beers, for example, was a task-focused leader. A
group and organizational setting may work to neutral- meta-analytic review of more than 150 studies
ize leadership. Whereas substitutes take the place of that compared the leadership styles adopted by
leadership interventions, neutralizers interfere with or men and women concluded women performed
completely prevent the leader from effectively dealing more relationship-oriented actions in laboratory
with the task or relational needs of the group. When groups and also described themselves as more
members work at extremely simple, boring tasks, relationship-oriented on questionnaires. The sexes
even the most energetic and well-meaning leader did not differ, however, in studies conducted in
may be unable to transform the work into an intel- organizational settings (Eagly & Johnson, 1990).
lectually satisfying experience (Howell et al., 1990). These findings suggest that stereotypes continue to
constrain men and women in a variety of interper-
Sex Differences in Leadership Leadership has sonal and work settings, but that “men and women
two sides—the task side and the relational side— do not consistently and reliably differ in their enact-
and humans come in two varieties—man and ment of interpersonal versus task style in leadership
woman. Do these variations in leadership corre- roles” (Gipson et al., 2017, p. 45).
spond to sex differences in leadership?
9-2 LEADERSHIP EMERGENCE
Despite changes in the roles of men and women
in contemporary society, when men and women Scholars down through the centuries have searched
gather in groups, the men tend to be agentic— for the source of leadership inside of people rather
task-oriented, active, decision-focused, indepen- than the groups they lead. In the nineteenth century,
dent, goal-oriented—whereas women are more for example, the historian Thomas Carlyle (1841)
communal—helpful to others, warm in relation to offered up his great leader theory of history (Car-
others, understanding, aware of others’ feelings lyle called it the “great man” theory). He asserted
(Abele et al., 2008). Women, to speak in generalities, that leaders possess certain characteristics that mark
when asked to describe themselves to others in them for greatness, so history could be best studied
just-formed groups, stress their communal qualities by considering the contributions of the few great
with such adjectives as open, fair, responsible, and men and women. The Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy,
pleasant. Men describe themselves as influential, in contrast, argued such leaders as Alexander the
powerful, and skilled at the task to be done (Forsyth Great and Napoleon came to prominence because
et al., 1985). Women, more so than men, engage in the spirit of the times—the Zeitgeist—was propitious
relationship maintenance, including giving advice, for the dominance of a single individual, and the
offering assurances, and managing conflict (Leaper qualities of the person were largely irrelevant to
& Ayres, 2007). Women connect more positively this rise to power. His Zeitgeist theory traced lead-
to other group members by smiling more, maintaining ership emergence and effectiveness to the situational,
eye contact, and responding more tactfully to others’ rather than, personal factors (Tolstoy, 1887/1952).
comments (Hall, 2006). These differences can be seen
in groups of children, with boys undertaking physical great leader theory A view of leadership, attributed to
activities, competing with one another, and playing in historian Thomas Carlyle, which states that successful lea-
rough ways, and girls carrying out coordinated activi- ders possess certain characteristics that mark them for great-
ties with a minimum of conflict (Maccoby, 2002). ness and that such great leaders shape the course of history.
These differences may even reflect evolutionary pres- Zeitgeist theory A view of leadership, attributed to Leo
sures that encouraged the development of communal Tolstoy, which states that history is determined primarily
tendencies in women and task-focused activity in men by the “spirit of the times” rather than by the actions and
(Geary, 1988). choices of great leaders.
This sex difference is only a tendency; it does
not manifest itself across all groups and situations.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 271
Who Needs a Leader?
Some evidence suggests that a group of men will be these ratings to determine if control over the
more likely to include a leader than will a group of group’s activities was concentrated, by consensus, on
women (Schmid Mast, 2002). Investigators tested for one group member. Centralization decreased, over
this sex difference by arranging for three- to five- time, in all the groups, but it remained higher across
person groups to meet over three weeks. Some of the three weeks in the all-male groups. The investi-
the groups were all male, some were all female, and gators concluded that men, in general, are more
some included two men and two women. At the end tolerant of inequality than women, so they favor
of each day’s session, the group members rated one social hierarchy and centralization (Berdahl &
another on leadership, and the researchers used Anderson, 2005).
These two perspectives—Carlyle’s great leader researchers began to wonder if personality made
theory and Tolstoy’s Zeitgeist approach—continue much of a difference when trying to predict who
to shape theoretical analyses of leadership emer- would emerge as a leader and who would not
gence. The great leader theory is consistent with a (Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948).
trait approach to leadership, which assumes that lea-
ders possess certain personality traits and character- In retrospect, this rejection of the trait approach
istics and that these characteristics are responsible for was premature. When researchers used more precise
their rise in the leadership ranks. Tolstoy’s Zeitgeist measures of personality, stronger relationships were
view, in contrast, is consistent with a situational identified. Table 9.1, for example, samples the results
approach, which suggests that leadership is deter- of just a few of the hundreds of studies of the rela-
mined by a host of variables operating in the lead- tionship between such personality qualities as asser-
ership situation, including the size of the group, its tiveness, dominance, narcissism, self-monitoring, and
cohesion, the quality of leader–member relations, social motivation and leadership (see Zaccaro,
and the type of task to be performed. Neither Kemp, & Bader, 2004). The interaction of per-
approach, however, is sufficient to account for lead- sonality traits with the situation also matters.
ership emergence, but must be instead combined in Conscientious, organized, achievement-oriented, and
an interactional approach that considers both personal self-controlled individuals are more likely to emerge
qualities as well as situational factors when predict- as leaders in situations that favor a task-oriented leader,
ing leadership. After all, leadership is a behavior, whereas extraverted, gregarious individuals lead when
and as Lewin’s (1951) interactional approach main- the situation requires interpersonal skills (DeRue
tained, behavior is a function of both the person et al., 2011).
and the environment: Behavior = f (P, E ).
More sophisticated research procedures also
9-2a The Leader’s Traits yielded stronger evidence of the power of person-
ality to predict leadership emergence. Longitudinal
Early leadership researchers believed that leaders pos- and rotational designs proved to be particularly use-
sessed certain personality traits that set them apart ful, for these types of studies could detect consisten-
from others. This trait approach, which in its strongest cies in leadership tendencies over time and
form assumed that some people were natural-born situations. For example, longitudinal studies that
leaders, faded in popularity as researchers reported a measured young adults’ personality at age 19 used
series of failures to find any consistent impact of per- that information to successfully predict who would
sonality on leadership behavior across a wide variety occupy a leadership position in their workplace 12
of situations. After conducting hundreds of studies, years later (Reichard et al., 2011). Rotational
designs separate the causal influence of the person
versus the situation by studying individuals as they
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
272 C H A P T E R 9
T A B L E 9.1 A Sampling of Personality Characteristics That Are Reliably Associated with
Leadership Emergence
Characteristic Relationship to Leadership Emergence
Assertiveness
The relationship between assertiveness and leadership emergence is curvilinear;
individuals who are either low in assertiveness or very high in assertiveness are
less likely to be identified as leaders (Ames & Flynn, 2007).
Authenticity Individuals who are more aware of their personal qualities, including their
values and beliefs and exhibiting less bias when processing self-relevant infor-
mation, are more likely to be accepted as leaders (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang,
2005).
Birth order Those born first in their families and only children are hypothesized to be more
driven to seek leadership and control in social settings. Middle-born children
tend to accept follower roles in groups, and children born later are thought to
be rebellious and creative (Grose, 2003).
Character strengths Those seeking leadership positions in a military organization had elevated
scores on a number of indicators of strength of character, including hon-
esty, hope, bravery, industry, and teamwork (Matthews et al., 2006).
Dominance Individuals with dominant personalities—they describe themselves as high in
their desire to control their environment, to influence other people, and to
express their opinions in a forceful way—are more likely to act as leaders in
small-group situations (Smith & Foti, 1998).
Five factors of personality Those who emerge as leaders tend to be more extraverted, conscientious, emo-
tionally stable, and open to experience, although these tendencies are stronger
in laboratory studies of leaderless groups (Judge et al., 2002).
Gender identity Masculine individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders than are feminine
individuals (Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986).
Narcissism Individuals who take on leadership roles in turbulent situations, such as
groups facing a threat or those in which status is determined by intense
competition among rivals within the group, tend to be narcissistic, arro-
gant, self-absorbed, hostile, and very self-confident (Rosenthal & Pittinsky,
2006).
Self-efficacy for leadership Confidence in one’s ability to lead is associated with increases in willingness
to accept a leadership role and success in that role (Hoyt & Blascovich,
2007).
Self-monitoring High self-monitors are more likely to emerge as the leader of a group than are
low self-monitors, since they are more concerned with status-enhancement and
are more likely to adapt their actions to fit the demands of the situation
(Bedeian & Day, 2004).
Social motivation Individuals who are both success-oriented and affiliation-oriented, as assessed
by projective measures, are more active in group problem-solving settings and
are more likely to be elected to positions of leadership in such groups (Sorren-
tino & Field, 1986).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 273
rotate from one group to another, working on dif- group (Judge et al., 2002). Their findings, which are
ferent tasks. Such studies suggest the same individual summarized in Figure 9.1, suggest that two personality
often emerges as the leader again and again across traits—conscientiousness and extraversion—are the
groups, despite the changes in group composition two traits that are correlated at higher levels with
and the tasks the groups are attempting (Borgatta, leadership emergence. Openness and emotional stabil-
Couch, & Bales, 1954; Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). ity also predict leadership, although to a lesser degree,
leaving only agreeableness as a weaker predictor of
Research even confirms—at least tentatively— leadership emergence; leaders, apparently, need not
the idea that some people might be “born leaders” be warm and kind (Hogan, 2005). Note, though,
after all. Some of the qualities that promote emer- these two caveats. First, studies involving students
gence as a leader, such as temperament, intelligence, generally found stronger relationships between per-
and extraversion, are not just stable, but heritable: If, sonality and leadership emergence than studies of lea-
for example, a close relative is a leader, then you are ders in military, government, and business settings.
more likely to be a leader as well (Arvey & Chatur- Second, what predicts leadership emergence may
vedi, 2011). A person’s leadership potential is deter- not also predict effectiveness once one has become a
mined more by environmental forces—exposure to leader. As Figure 9.1 indicates, agreeableness did not
mentors and role models, opportunities to take on predict leadership emergence, but it did predict
leadership challenges, the diligent development of effectiveness—even more so than conscientiousness
leadership competencies, and so on—but genetics (Judge et al., 2002).
creates a readiness. Researchers have even tracked
down a likely genetic marker of leadership—rs4950 Conscientious
located on a neuronal acetylcholine receptor gene
(De Neve et al., 2013) Extraversion
Personality and Leadership As noted in Agreeable
Chapter 4, the five-factor model (FFM) has
emerged as the dominant taxonomy for organizing Stability
individual differences in personality (McCrae &
Costa, 2013). Why do some individuals seek out Openness
leadership responsibilities, whereas others excel at
tasks that require solitude and deliberation? Why 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
are some individuals willing to help other members Correlation
of their team, but others regularly fail to step in
with assistance even when they are asked? The Effectiveness Emergence
FFM’s explanation: Variations among people can
be conceptualized in terms of five fundamental F I G U R E 9.1 The relationship between the person-
dimensions—introversion/extraversion, friendli- ality factors identified in the five-factor model of per-
ness/hostility, achievement motivation, emotional sonality and leadership emergence and effectiveness.
stability vs. anxiety, and openness (or, in some When researchers used meta-analysis to combine the
models, culture or intellect)—and these dimensions results of 222 correlational findings generated in 73
account for observed regularities in a wide range of samples of the personality–leadership relationship, they
interpersonal behaviors, including leadership. found that extraversion and conscientiousness were the
strongest predictors of emergence and agreeableness the
When researchers reviewed the results of 60 stud- weakest (Judge et al., 2002).
ies of personality and leadership meta-analytically,
they discovered that the more one is conscientious, SOURCE: From tabled data in Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt,
extraverted, agreeable, emotionally stable, and open, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative
then the more likely one will emerge as a leader of a review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
274 C H A P T E R 9
The Dark Triad Whereas FFM may explain 9-2b Intellectual and Practical Skills
routine interpersonal tendencies by describing
qualities that are socially valued—the “right After Charlotte Beers graduated from college she
stuff”—another set of personality traits is also went to work at Uncle Ben’s, working as a group
related to leadership: the Dark Triad (DT) of manager for one product: their long-grain rice.
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy Some 40 years later, having been the CEO of one
(Paulhus & Williams, 2002). of the largest advertising companies in the world,
she was selected by U.S. General Colin Powell to
■ Machiavellianism: Machiavellians endorse using teach (and reassure) the residents of other countries
manipulative tactics in dealing with other about America’s hopes for world peace and pros-
people and espouse a cynical view of human perity. Her personality was one of the key reasons
nature. why she became the leader across a wide variety of
times and contexts, but personality alone does not
■ Narcissism: Narcissists have inflated views of explain why she was so often the “one in charge.”
their self-worth; they tend to exaggerate She is extraverted and highly conscientious, but also
their achievements, block criticism, refuse to intelligent, experienced, and motivated to lead.
compromise, and seek out attention and
recognition from others. General Mental Ability When people describe
Charlotte Beers, they often start with one word:
■ Psychopathy: Psychopaths lack concern for both fierce. Their next word, however, is usually smart.
other people as well as for social regulatory
mechanisms, so they tend to act impulsively The hallmarks of general mental ability (GMA)
without full consideration of the consequences are abstract thinking, ability to manipulate the envi-
of their choices. ronment, and foresight—all qualities that likely qual-
ify one to be a leader. It’s not surprising that leaders
Studies suggest that all three of the dark triad tend to score higher than average on standard intel-
traits are related to leadership emergence (O’Boyle ligence tests, and they make superior judgments with
et al., 2012). Machiavellians’ ability to be social cha- greater decisiveness. They tend to be knowledgeable
meleons, taking on the attitudes and behaviors of both in general and about their particular field, and
those around them while subtly manipulating the their verbal skills—both written and oral—are super-
situation to their favor, explains why they are often ior relative to nonleaders (Stogdill, 1948).
able to secure positions of leadership in groups.
Narcissists, too, are often selected for positions of Leaders, however, typically do not exceed their
leadership, given their outgoing, confident inter- followers’ intellectual prowess by a wide margin
personal styles (Grijalva et al., 2015). Individuals (Simonton, 1985). Groups generally prefer leaders
with elevated scores in psychopathy are often passed who are more intelligent than the average group
over for leadership given their lack of conscien- member, but too great a discrepancy introduces
tiousness and inability to empathize with cowor- problems in communication, in trust, and in social
kers, but they are successful in certain types of sensitivity. Although highly intelligent individuals
organizations. One analysis of psychopathology in may be extremely capable and efficient leaders,
the workplace (provocatively titled Snakes in Suits) their groups may feel that large differences in intel-
suggested that 3.5% of top executives earn very lectual abilities translate into large differences in
high scores on standard measures of psychopathy interests, in attitudes, and in values. Hence,
(Babiak & Hare, 2006). although high intelligence may mean skilled lead-
ership, a group prefers to be “ill-governed by peo-
Dark Triad (DT) The set of three socially aversive per- ple it can understand” (Gibb, 1969, p. 218).
sonality qualities comprised of Machiavellianism, narcis-
sism, and psychopathy. Emotional Intelligence When people think of
intelligence, they often stress cognitive abilities
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 275
such as mathematics, verbal skills, and intellectual told to use the available boards, ropes, and beams
problem-solving. But some people are also inter- to build a temporary bridge to the other side
personally intelligent: They have the ability to (Eaton, 1947). Some individuals within these
understand and relate to people, for they deal groups could master these tasks by identifying the
with others wisely and effectively. They have ele- solution and persuading others in their group to
vated emotional intelligence: “the ability to per- follow their directions. Individuals who succeeded
ceive emotions in self and others; to understand in the leaderless-group tests had practical intelligence.
how emotions blend, unfold, and influence cogni-
tion and behavior; to use emotions to facilitate Psychologist Robert Sternberg (2012) includes
thinking; and to manage emotions in self and practical intelligence as one of the cornerstones of
others” (Lopes & Salovey, 2008, p. 81). his systems model of leadership. Sternberg recog-
nizes that good leaders are often intellectually
Skill in communicating and decoding emotions strong individuals and capable of acquiring and pro-
is essential for an effective leader. The emotionally cessing information in a logical, sensible, and rapid
intelligent leader can see problems coming, for such way. But leaders are also skilled problem-solvers.
problems are often conveyed indirectly by others’ They have the “know how” needed for success in
moods and emotions. Better able to read the poli- the given situation, and they are sufficiently skilled
tics of the situation, such leaders can detect shifting to convince others to follow their recommenda-
alliances and recognize where to put their energies tions. Sternberg also includes creative intelligence in
and when to bide their time. They can also com- his theory, recognizing that in many cases leaders
municate their ideas to others in more robust ways, must be able to recognize future goals and direc-
for they can use their own emotional energy to tions and take steps to help the group accept their
influence others. They are also less likely to lose vision of the future. Charlotte Beers, for example,
control of their emotions—they are not inappropri- was intelligent in the analytical sense: she majored
ately angry, critical, or histrionic. In consequence, in physics and mathematics in college. But she was
emotional intelligence is associated with various also intelligent, in a practical and creative sense: she
aspects of leadership, including emergence as a was able to identify a specific strategy to reenergize
leader, willingness to cooperate with others, empa- Ogilvy, and then use her persuasive talents to con-
thy for others, the tendency to take others’ perspec- vince others to share this vision.
tives, and the emotional intensity of one’s
interpersonal relations (Humphrey, 2014). Expertise Practical intelligence comes with expe-
rience. One review of 52 studies of characteristics
Practical and Creative Intelligence During typically ascribed to a leader discovered that techni-
World War II, Germany, America, and England cal, task-relevant skills were mentioned in 35% of
experimented with various methods for identifying the studies (Stogdill, 1974). Groups are more accept-
leaders to serve in the military. In many cases, they ing of leaders who have previously demonstrated
used the so-called leaderless-group tests, in which a task ability and are more willing to follow the direc-
group of individuals, strangers to one another, was tions of a task-competent person than those of an
given a task to complete. For example, a group incompetent person (Hollander, 1965). Further-
might be assembled on one side of a ravine and more, although high task ability facilitates leadership,
low task ability seems to be an even more powerful
emotional intelligence The component of social intel- factor in disqualifying individuals from consideration
ligence that relates to one’s capacity to accurately per- as leaders (Palmer, 1962). Initially, if group members
ceive emotions, to use information about emotions do not know one another well, then they may rely
when making decisions, and to monitor and control on diffuse status characteristics, such as rank, age, and
one’s own and others’ emotional reactions. tenure with the group, to infer expertise, but over
time they will shift to specific, behavioral cues to
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
276 C H A P T E R 9
What Matters More: Quantity or Quality?
Leaders are active within their groups rather than aloof; quantity of talk on leadership by manipulating both
they show up for meetings, they ask questions, they variables experimentally. Since they are two different
offer comments and suggestions, they talk to other variables that can range in intensity from high to low,
members on the phone, and they send out emails. The comparing their relative impact on leadership requires
correlation between leadership emergence and most that they be matched in terms of strength. Therefore,
personal characteristics usually averages in the low .20s, before pitting quantity against quality, they first cali-
but the correlation between participation rate and brated the strength of these two variables so that each
leadership ranges from .61 to .72 (Littlepage & Mueller, one had a fair chance of overpowering the other one.
1997; Malloy & Janowski, 1992; Stein & Heller, 1979). As in prior research, they created low- and high-quality
arguments and low- and high-quantity messages, but
Group members take note of participation rate in they also made sure the high conditions were twice
part because it tells them who is interested in the the level of the low conditions for both variables.
group and is willing to take responsibility for its per- What they discovered was that quantity did matter,
formance. One of the surest ways to escape serving as but only if the comments offered were of high quality.
the leader of a group is to not say much during meet- People who made low-quality comments during the
ings. But what about the opposite tendency—the group discussion received relatively low ratings on
babble effect? Do group members just assume people leadership potential, even when they offered a sub-
who talk a lot in the group meetings are the group stantial number of these comments. Quantity did
leaders, even if what they say has little value (Sorren- boost one’s leadership ratings, but only if the com-
tino & Boutillier, 1975)? ments were of high quality. Rationality (quality)
trumped babble (quantity), at least in this case.
Social psychologists Eric Jones and Janice Kelly
(2007) studied the impact of the quality of talk and the
determine who is competent and who is not sometimes moved ahead for some really off the charts
(Bunderson, 2003). Given enough experience in reasons.” Those “off the charts” reasons include
working together, most group members can distin- unrecognized biases based on general demographic
guish between the skilled and the unskilled (Little- characteristics, such as age, race, and sex.
page, Robison, & Reddington, 1997; Littlepage &
Silbiger, 1992). Task-specific skills are more important Physical Appearances Leaders tend to differ
in determining leadership emergence in performance- physically from their fellow group members. They
oriented, service–delivery-oriented groups, whereas are often taller, healthier, and older than the aver-
interpersonal and conceptual skills are more important age group member. Height and leadership emer-
in upper echelon leadership positions (Yukl, 2013). gence are correlated, on average, at .30 (Stogdill,
1948, 1974). People who look physically fit are
9-2c The Leader’s Look considered more leader-like than individuals who
are out of shape (Campbell et al., 2002). Older
An individual’s intellectual and practical skills may people, too tend to be viewed as leaders more so
qualify them to lead a group, yet the group does than younger group members, particularly if group
not select them to lead. As Beers (2012, p. 126) members assume that age is an indicator of wisdom,
explains, “It’s a subjective process, and people are experience, and sagacity. For example, fewer than
1% of the corporate executives for the top Fortune
babble effect The tendency for group members who 700 companies are under 40 years of age, and 81%
talk at a high rate in the group to emerge as leaders, are 50 or older (Spencer Stuart, 2004). Even hair
even if the information they share with the group is of color has been found to influence perceptions of
low quality. leadership. A study of the 500 top CEOs in Eng-
land discovered fewer blondes and more redheads
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 277
than might be expected given the distribution of Americans than to African Americans and Asian
these hair colors in the overall population of the Americans (Carton & Rosette, 2011). Asian Amer-
country. The authors suggest that stereotypes about icans, despite their success in scientific and technical
blondes—that they are less cognitively swift—and fields, are less likely than European Americans and
redheads—that they are mean but competent— African Americans to achieve positions of leadership
may be sufficient to cause their under- and over- in their fields (Tang, 1997). Ethnic and racial
representation in leadership positions (Takeda, minorities are underrepresented in the leadership
Helms, & Romanova, 2006). world (Hooijberg & DiTomaso, 1996).
Diversity When Beers (who is white) was the Sex Beers, as both a woman and a leader, is some-
CEO of Oglivy, the majority of the employees thing of an exception. Although the gender gap in
were white as well. The president of the student leadership has narrowed in recent years, it has not
government association of a traditionally African closed. Both men and women, when surveyed,
American college is likely a black woman. The exec- express a preference for a male rather than a female
utive director of the Organization of Chinese Amer- boss (Powell, 2014). Women receive lower evalua-
icans is likely a Chinese American. In 2016, how tions and fewer promotions than men, even when
many African Americans were leaders (CEOs) of a actual performance data or behaviors are held con-
Fortune 500 company in the United States? Only stant (Heilman, Block, & Martell, 1995). A survey
five. And only one was a woman (McGirt, 2016). of over 40 countries, including Austria, Israel, and
Singapore, indicated that women hold 20–30% of
Leadership is not limited to any particular cul- the governmental, legislative, and managerial posi-
tural, ethnic, or racial group, for the role of leader is tions in those countries (Schein, 2007). The per-
firmly embedded in the traditions of African, Euro- centage has risen steadily over the years, but men
pean, Latino, Asian, and Native American groups still hold a near monopoly on the high-level lead-
(Smith & Bond, 1993). But individuals who are ership positions (Carli & Eagly, 2011). In 2017,
members of a minority group, whether based on only 21 women (4%) were the CEOs of Fortune
ethnicity, religion, or race, are less likely to be 500 companies. Female managers are more likely to
recognized as group leaders. For example, when feel excluded from career-related and informal
Mexican American and European American women interactions with senior managers than are male
interacted in groups, the Mexican American women managers (Cianni & Romberger, 1995), and some
exerted less influence than the European American have also expressed less confidence in their leader-
women (Roll, McClelland, & Abel, 1996). In a ship abilities (Watson & Hoffman, 1996). The terms
study conducted in Australia that paired Chinese glass ceiling and leadership labyrinth describe the hid-
students with the Australian students, the Chinese stu- den situational and interpersonal factors that pre-
dents were less influential than the Australian students vent women from gaining leadership positions
(Jones et al., 1995). (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
Minorities are also underrepresented in leader- This gender difference also shapes men’s and
ship roles in business and organizational settings. As women’s actions in small-group settings. Men are
of 2017, only four African Americans have been five times more likely to enact leadership behaviors
elected as state governors, and Barack Obama was than women in small, mixed-sex, leaderless groups
the first African American U.S. president. African and so are more likely to emerge as leaders (Walker
Americans in U.S. organizations and military et al., 1996). Both leaders and subordinates perceive
groups are less likely to lead in racially diverse female leaders to be less dominant than male leaders
groups, even if their experience qualifies them for (Carli, 2001). The lone man in an otherwise all-
these roles (Molm, 1986). When senior managers female group often becomes the leader, whereas
review the leadership potential of lower-level the lone woman in an otherwise all-male group
managers, they give higher marks to European
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
278 C H A P T E R 9
has little influence (Crocker & McGraw, 1984). of the People’s Temple. Charlotte Beers was selected
When a woman exerts influence in a group, mem- to run Ogilvy. But why Manet and not Degas? Why
bers tend to frown and tighten their facial muscles; Strauch and not Canessa? Why Beers and not some-
but when a man takes charge, members are more one from inside the company itself? Here we will
likely to nod in agreement (Butler & Geis, 1990). consider five theories that provide very different
The tendency for men to dominate women in solutions to the riddle of leadership emergence and,
informal discussion groups was observed even in so doing, provide their own unique insights:
when the men and women were all deemed to be Implicit leadership theory, social identity theory,
androgynous (Porter et al., 1985), when group social role theory, terror management theory, and
members were personally committed to equality evolutionary theory (see Dinh et al., 2014, for a
for men and women (Sapp, Harrod, & Zhao, comprehensive review and taxonomy of leadership
1996), when the women in the group were dispo- theories).
sitionally more dominant than the men (Nyquist &
Spence, 1986), and when the men and women 9-3a Implicit Leadership Theory
were equally extraverted (Campbell et al., 2002).
When researchers paired together a person who When people meet for the first time, they quickly
tended to be interpersonally powerful with one appraise one another’s potential as leaders, and,
who was more submissive, the dispositionally dom- within the first few minutes, those with more
inant person emerged as the leader in 73% of the potential are permitted to exert more influence
same-sex dyads. But in mixed-sex dyads, the domi- over the group than others. Implicit leadership the-
nant man became the leader 90% of the time, and ory, developed by social psychologist Robert Lord
the dominant woman became the leader only 35% and his colleagues, traces these preferences to indi-
of the time (Nyquist & Spence, 1986). viduals’ expectations, beliefs, and assumptions about
leaders and leadership. These cognitive structures
This tendency for men to emerge as leaders are termed implicit leadership theories (ILTs)
more frequently than women is particularly ironic or leader prototypes. These structures are described
because studies of sex differences in the qualities as implicit because they are not overtly stated; fol-
that have been shown to predict leadership lowers may not even be aware they have intuitive
effectiveness—extraversion, conscientiousness, skill beliefs about leadership or that these beliefs influ-
in working with others, acknowledging the good ence their reactions to leaders. They are called theo-
work of subordinates, communicating clearly, and ries because, like formal theories, they include
facilitating others’ development—all suggest that generalities about leadership and hypotheses about
women are superior in these qualities to men. the qualities that characterize most leaders (Lord,
Hence, although women’s personality traits and Foti, & De Vader, 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991).
competences qualify them to be leaders, they are
less likely to gain such positions (Powell, 2014). Consider the hypothetical ILT shown in
Figure 9.2. A follower whose thoughts about lead-
9-3 THEORIES OF ership were organized by this ILT would believe
that outstanding leaders should be intelligent, inspi-
LEADERSHIP EMERGENCE rational, visionary, relational, dedicated, team-
oriented, diplomatic, and have integrity. This ILT
What explains who emerges from the crowd of can- implicit leadership theories Group members’ taken-
didates to become the group’s leader? Manet was the for-granted assumptions about the traits, characteristics,
leader of the Impressionist painters. Fito Strauch and qualities that distinguish leaders from the people
took control of the day-to-day activities of the they lead; also known as leader prototypes.
Andes survivors. Jim Jones was the charismatic leader
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 279
Decisive Clever
Just Honest Positive
Trustworthy
Effective bargainer Intelligent Dynamic
Integrity Inspirational Motivating
Encouraging
Diplomatic Leadership Visionary Plans
Team-oriented Dedicated ahead
Problem Foresight
solver
Relational
Communicative Informed Gets Helpful Humane
Coordinates Things
Hardworking done
Organizer
Sincere
F I G U R E 9.2 A representation of the associations that make up an implicit leadership theory.
also indicates how these general traits are linked to between effective and ineffective leaders and leaders
more specific qualities. How do you know if a and followers (Lord, 2005; Lord & Maher, 1991). If,
leader is dedicated? See if he or she is hardworking for example, a follower thinks that a leader should be
and knows how to get things done. And what bold, energetic, and daring, then she will likely rate a
about inspiration? An inspiring leader should be gung-ho leader more positively than a low-key con-
motivating, dynamic, positive, and encouraging. sensus builder. In contrast, if the follower believes
Although each group member may have a unique that a leader should be considerate and reflective,
conception of leadership, most people’s ILTs then he will respond more positively to one who
include task skills—the leader should be active, shows concern for others and deliberates extensively
determined, influential, and in command—and before making a decision. To test this prototype-
relationship skills—the leader should be caring, matching hypothesis, Lord and his colleagues (1984)
interested, truthful, and open to others’ ideas asked people to evaluate one of three hypothetical
(Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; House et al., 2004). leaders. One, the prototypical leader, displayed qual-
ILTs are also sensitive to the specifics of a given ities that were congruent with most people’s ILTs:
situation. Some leadership traits, such as persistence, He set goals, provided directive information, talked
likeability, and charisma, are considered to be with subordinates a great deal, and identified pro-
essential qualities only in particular contexts, such blems needing solutions. The second leader dis-
as politics, business, or sports (Lord et al., 1984). played qualities that were inconsistent with most
ILTs: He admitted mistakes, paid little attention to
The Prototype-Matching Hypothesis Lord sug- details, was critical without reason, and withheld
gests that ILTs provide followers with a psychologi- rewards. A third leader displayed positive qualities
cal standard or prototype they can use to distinguish that were neither consistent nor inconsistent with
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 650
- 651 - 700
- 701 - 723
Pages: