Original Instrument Leader Power

8/13/2019 Original Instrument Leader Power

1/7

Journal of Applied Psychology1989, Vol. 74, No. 4,561-567 Copyright 1989by the America n Psychological Association, Inc .002l-9010/89/$00.75

Development and Application of New Scales to MeasuretheFrenchandRaven(1959)BasesofSocial PowerTimothyR. HinkinMclntire School of CommerceUniversity ofVirginia

ChesterA.SchriesheimSchool ofBusiness AdministrationUniversity ofMiami

Presentedareresults from amultistep, three-sam ple study that designed measures ofreward,coer-cive,legitimate,expert,andreferent power thatareconceptually consistent with respectto thesourceofpower.Constructdefinitions were developed anditems were generated andevaluated forcontentvalidity. Exploratory andconfirmatory factor analysesanditem analyses were conducted to developperceptually distinct scaleswith acceptableinternal consistency andstable factorstructures. Theindependence of thescaleswasnext examined, anddiscriminantvaliditywasassessed.Finally, zero-order andpartialcorrelation conc urrent validity analyses were conduc ted, and conclusions weredrawnconcerningboththe newscalesand theextantliterature.

The acquisition and maintenance of power is, according toMcClelland and Burn ham (197 6), one of the most socially mo-tivating processes that occurs inorganizations.As onemightexpect, power is a central concern of most em ployees (Gioia &Sims, 1983),and it hasalso been examinedbyscholarsfrom awide varietyofperspectives (e.g., Grimes, 1978; McClelland,1975;Pfeffer, 1981).Althoughanumberof powertypologiesorframeworksexist, perhaps the mostinfluentialis that of FrenchandRaven(1959).French and Raven(1959)distinguished between reward , co-ercive,legitimate, referent,andexpert power.Their typologyispresented in most major textbooks in the field and, accordingtoMintzberg (1983)andothers,it isalsotheframework mostfrequently used in power research. Amajor criticism of theFrench and Raven typology,however, isthat the power baseslack conceptual consistency regarding the source or origin ofinfluence(Patchen,1974;Yukl, 1981).Forexample,thesourceofreward poweris thepower holder's perceived ability to ad-minister outcomesthat are rewarding. However, the source ofreferentpoweris thepower holder's perceivedattractive charac-teristics.In addition, empirical research using the French andRaven typology has been limited almo st exclusively to fieldstudies thathaveprim arily used single-item ran king scales (asopposed to ratingorLikert-type measures). This research hasbeen severely criticized (Podsakoff& Schriesheim, 1985),anda four-sample study by Schriesheim, Hinkin, andPodsakoff(1985)strongly demonstrated that the results of most existing

Timothy R. Hinkin was supported during this research throughfunding provided to the University of Virginia's Mclntire School ofCommerce by the Marriott Corporation Summer Research Fellow-ships.ChesterA.Schriesheimwassupportedby theSummer AwardsinBusinessand theSocial Sciences Program, University of Miami, andthe School of Business Administration Corporate Affiliate Program,University of Miami.Correspondence concerning this article, including requests foralongerand more detailed report ofthis research, shouldbe addressedto Timothy R, Hinkin, Mclntire Schoolof Commerce, UniversityofVirginia,Charlottesville, Virginia 22904.

research on the French and Ravenpower bases must be ques-tioned because of psychometric inadequacies of the measuresthathavebeen used.Althoughthe concept of power has garnered mu ch attentionoverthelast several decades,keyquestions rem ain unansw ered.Thus, it is impo rtant that the investigation ofpowerin organiza-tionscontinue. Because theoretical progress is impossible with-out adequate measurement technology (Korman, 1974;Schwab, 1980) andbecause m any studiesofpowerusepsycho-metrically unsound measures (PodsakofF & Schriesheim,1985),thisstudy wasconducted. This articlefirstreports theresults of a multisample study that refinedthe Schriesheim etal.(1985)scales to develop conceptually consistent and psycho-metrically sound measures derived from French and Raven(1959).Relationships between the newpower base measuresand subordinate outcomes are next reported and comparedwith prior researchfindings. Finally, conclusionsand sugges-tionsforfutureresearchinthis domainarediscussed.

Item Development ProcessOn thebasisof findings ofPodsakoffandSchriesheim(1985)and Schriesheimet al. (1985), thedevelopmentof newpowerbase measuresw asbegun. Aprocess recommended byNun-nally(1978), Churchill(1979),and others was used. The start-ingpoint involvedthedevelopmentand use ofnew, conceptu-allycon sistent, theoretical d efinitions of the various power basesand focused on developing scales that describe behaviors (ratherthan traits or characteristics). O ne goal of this research w as todevelopsound scales tha t w ere also parsimonious, consisting ofas fewitemsaspossible wh ile still adequately samplingthe do-mains ofinterest.

Theoretical Construct DefinitionsTo begin constructing scales, theoretical definitions areneeded to p ermit the assessment of scale contentvalidityand toprovidea starting po int for the generation of items(Nunnally,1978).H ere, a major concern was to create a consistent set ofdefinitionsthat would remain compatible w ith the theory pro-

561


2/7

562 TIMOTHY R. HINKIN AND CHESTER A. SCHRIESHEIMposedbyFrenchand Raven(1959). Wefeltthatdenningall ofthepowerbasesasinvolvingtheabilityto administertangible( things ) or intangible ( feelings ) outcomes for anotherwoulddo this andwouldalsofacilitate the generation ofbehav-iorally phrased items that areconsistentwithprior theory andresearch on power (e.g., Dahl, 1957; Etzioni, 1961; Kanter,1979).

Wefirstindependently generateddefinitions foreach baseofpower.We then jointlyevaluatedtheproposeddefinitions andcame to consensual agreement (for more detail, see riinkin,1985).Thepowerbasesinvolvedin this researchwerethusde-fined as follows:

Reward poweris the ability to administer to another things he orshedesiresor toremoveordecreasethingshe or shedoesnotdesire.Coercivepoweris the ability to administer to another things he orshedoes notdesireor toremoveor decreasethingshe or shedoesdesire.Legitimatepoweris the ability to administer to another feelingsofobligation or responsibility.Referent poweris the ability to administer to another feelingsofpersonal acceptance orapproval.Expert poweris the ability to administer to another information,knowledge,orexpertise.

and the sample was 59% men. The respondents worked an average of 22hr per week andwereemployed in a wide variety of organizations. Thesecond sample (B) consisted of 375full-timeemployees of a large south-ern U.S. psychiatric hospital. The average age was 34 years, average ten-ure was 4.5 years, and 73% were women. Ninety-one percent of respon-dents had graduated from high school, and 40% had college degrees.The third sample (C) consisted of 220 part-time MBA students takingorganizational behaviorandbusiness policyclassesat amedium-sizedsouthernU.S. university.Theaverageage was 27years,and thesamplewas 56%men.Averageorganizational tenurewas 4years,and allwerecurrentlyworkingfull-timeemployees, with61 having supervisoryo rmanagerial and 27%salesorclerical positions.

ProcedureSurveyquestionnaires were administeredto therespondents intheir

natural (classroomorwork) settings during normal hours. Participationwasoptional,andanyonenotwishingtotakepartwasgiventheoppor-tunitytodecline.Thepurposeof theresearchwasexplainedin abrieforal presentation,andparticipants were giventhe opportunityto askquestions. Participants were encouraged to answer all of the questionsinthesurvey honestlyandwere assuredofcomplete anonymity.Of theoriginal 254 Sample A respondents whoparticipated,3 had to be elimi-natedbecauseofmissingdata.Twelveof theinitial387 inSampleBhadto beeliminated,as did 6 of theoriginal226SampleCrespondents.

Item Generation and ContentVa lidity ExaminationWenextgeneratedlistsofpotential scaleitems on the basis

ofthesedefinitions. The listswerethen evaluated for confor-mity to the theoretical definitions and for redundancy, andagreement wasreachedon 53 items to beretainedfor furtherassessment.

The53itemswerethensubmittedto aformalcontentvalid-ityexamination by twoindependentpanelsof judges Ns =37and 42), following Schriesheim's(1978)approach.The judgeswerepresentedwiththe constructdefinitionsand asked to clas-sifytherandomlyordereditemsintoone ormorepowercatego-ries.The 42itemsthatwereassignedto the proper a prioricate-gory morethan60% of the time bybothjudge panelswerere-tained. Theyappeared to be content valid, havingfirst beengeneratedby usindependentlyandthenhavingbeenselectedbytwoindependentpanelsofjudges as measuring theappropriatetheoreticalconstructs.

Scale DevelopmentandTesting ProcessScale development immediatelyfollowedthe item development phasewehaveoutlined.Thepower items (and other measures) were adminis-

tered to three independent samples.Aseriesofexploratory andcon-firmatory factoranalyses were conducted, leading to a final set of scaleswithacceptable content validity, discriminant validity,andinternal con-sistency reliability. The Results section details the exact sequence ofanalyses used. Additional setsofanalyses were then conductedto pro-videpreliminary evaluative psychometric evidenceon thevalidityof thenewscales.Samples

Asnoted, thedata forthis study were collected from three diversesamples. The first sample (subsequently labeled Sample A) consisted of251 upper-level undergraduates enrolled in two different businesscoursesat a large southern U.S. university. The average age was 22 years,

MeasuresPower. Themeasuresofpower usedinSample Awerethe 42items

that survived the content judging process described earlier: 8 reward, 10coercive, 1 1 legitimate,7referent, and 6expert power items. Severalitems from the Schriesheim etal.(1985) scales were retained. The 20items usedinSamplesB and Cwereselected on thebasisofSampleA'sresults,with4itemsforeachof the powerbases.In allsamples, therespondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement withthe randomly ordered items.

Satisfaction. Three measures of satisfaction wereused,consistingofthe five-item (each) Supervisor-Human Relations andSupervisor-Technical Abilitysubscales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Question-naire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967)and a 12-itemshort global MSQ satisfaction measure that has been used in previousresearch (e.g., Schriesheim etal., 1985). These measures were used inthe criterion-related validity analyses, quite simply because satisfactionisa traditional dependent variableinpower research (cf. Bass, 1981;Yukl, 1981)and because satisfaction has been shown to be related toother important variables (cf. Locke,1976).Coefficientalphaswere.97,.84, and .84 forhuman relations, technical ability,andglobal satisfac-tion, respectively, in Sample A; .89, .90, and .90 in Sample B; and .91,.85, and .86 in Sample C.

Commitment. Although empirical researchers of power do not oftenstudycommitment, it has been a central concern of theory in this do-main(cf.Pfeffer, 1981), andscholars suchasYukl (1981)have specifi-callycalledforfuture research onpowertoroutinely include commit-ment as a dependent variable. Thus, the15-itemPorter, Steers, Mowday,and Boulian (1974)Commitment scalewasusedtomeasure this con-struct. This instrument has been subjected to considerable psychomet-ric examination, and data pertaining to its reliability and validity aregenerallyquite positive (cf. Mowday,Steers,&Porter, 1979). Coefficientalpha reliabilitiesof.90, .87,and .90were obtained inSamplesA, B,and C, respectively.

ResultsTheresultsfrom the analysesdescribedpreviouslyare pre-

sented here. Those from the more complex and interrelated


3/7

NE W POWER SCALES 563Table1FactorAnalyticResults

ItemSampleA SampleB SampleC

h2 R02. R27. R33. R38. R04.C18.C21 .C22.C07. L30. L39. L42. L16. E19.E31.E40. E03.F06. F08.F12.F

.69

.84.47.78

.07.09.01-.07

.07.11.12.17

.10.03.06.21

.19.17.07.20

.03.03.01.06

.50.62.88.84

.14.15.08.14-.05-.04-.14.06

.01-.03.11-.06

.05

.13.02.18

.15.12.03.04

.64.64.86.70

.11.24.26.15

.22.29.23.22

.11.15.13-.03

.05-.12-.01-.05

.25.13.17.22

.71.75.62.74

.25.23.15.24

.03.12.22.12

.11-.09-.07-.11

.22.27.23.19

.19.24.30.11

.71.72.72.70

.50

.75.29.66

.30.44.78.73

.55.54.84.62

.58.68.55.62

.66.68.62.64

.57.74.41.64

.07.00.04.07

.08.06.19.19

.20.15.20.28

.20.14.15.19

.03.11.01.07

.51.84.88.85

.19.09.11.04-.02-.01-.13-.11-.04-.07-.06.02

.05.17.02.23

.14.06-.04.07

.57.60.79.77

.29.32.41.38

.27.27.23.24

.04.06.17.07

.04.07-.01-.08

.15.17.11.20

.55.48.51.63

.12.14.19.28

.03.15.11.29

.08-.02-.09-.12

.30.23.24.24

.42.44.44.33

.80.77.73.76

.33.62.21.56

.29.72.79.75

.48.46.74.72

.61.55.69.74

.77.71.64.73

.72.90.32.73

.09.06-.01.02

.09.08.10.10

.01.04.18.13

.28.11.01.10

.07.03.02.05

.57.74.91.86

.32.15.14.15

.00.00.07-.03

.05.27-.05-.04

.02.11.12.11

.15.10.08.14

.53.71.89.65

.06.15.23.10

.11.22.29.26

.03.02.29.17-.05.06.01-.03

.24.18.09.09

.83.69.60.82

.16.19.17.28

.05

.10.20.14

.14-.04.03.03

.36.21.20.21

.13.33.38.08

.62.79.66.64

.53

.83.24.59

.37.56.83.76

.58.61.86.51

.71.62.59.71

.50.80.55.57Note. Singlelettersincolumn headingsandstub denotetheproposed power baseforeach item:R = reward,C =coercive,L = legitimate,E =expert,and F =referent.TheAppendix showsthespecificwordingofeach item. Communalitiesaredenotedby h2.

analyses for Sample A arediscussedfirst. These analyses wereperformedpriorto thecollectionofdata from SamplesB andC, and they were used to select itemsfromthe initial item poolforinclusionin the newscales (for administrationtoSamplesBandC).InitialItem Selection Study: SampleA

Initial exploratory factor analyses. The 42power itemsad-ministered to Sample A were factor analyzed by using the prin-cipal-axis factor method, with squared multiple correlations asinitial communality estimates,and avarimaxrotation.Asec-ondfactoranalysis was then conducted, retaining the 30 itemswith appropriate a priori factor loadings of .40 or greater. Aclose examination of theresulting factor structure and itemcontent revealed that there would be little change in scaledo-main sampling adequacy, factor structure, or internal consis-tency reliability if thescaleswerefurther reduced. Two sets ofitems were then retained for further analysis, one composed of25items, and one of 20 items. Thefollowinganalyses were con-ducted onbothsetsofitems.Allevidence suggests thatthe 20-itemscaleswere superior,andthus only these resultsaresubse-quentlyreported.These 20 items involve five scales of 4 itemseach. The instructions, response format, and final 20 items arepresented in the Appendix.

The five-factorsolutionfor thebest 20itemsin SampleAexplained 69.5% of the total item variance and is presented inthe left-handcolumnsofTable 1.A sshowninthose columns,theitem-loading patternsareexcellent.

Initial confirmatory factor analyses. LISRELmaximumlikeli-hood confirmatoryfactoranalysis makes it possible to statisti-

callyassessthe goodness of fit of a factor structure to a set ofdata(Joreskog&Sorbom, 1985).Thus,weconducted LISRELanalyses on the 20 items of the powerscales,initiallyspecifyingthat each item load on only its appropriatefactor(i.e., no cross-loadingswereallowed) and that the five factors were not orthog-onal (i.e., intercorrelations were allowed among the factors).The resultinggoodness-of-fit (.90) and adjusted goodness-of-fit(.86) indices,aswellas theroot-mean-square residual (.06),indicated an excellent fit to thedata.All hypothesized factorloadings were.47 orgreater,and allwere significantatp


4/7


5/7

NE W POWER SCALES 565Table2ScaleIntercorrelations

RewardCoerciveLegitimateExpertReferent

A(.80).06.29.27.35

RewardB

(.77).11.36.43.40

CoerciveC

(.77).14.29.29.32

A

(.80).20-.06-.07

B

(-85).16-.08-.06

C

(.86).41.06.16

LegitimateA

(.87).46.53

B

(.85).64.57

C

(.86).39.55

A

(.85).52

ExpertB

(.90).72

C A

(-83).52 (.88)

ReferentB C

(.87) (.86)Note.Coefficientalpha reliabilitiesare inparentheses.InSampleA ( J V = 251),correlations attainsignificanceat .10(p


6/7

566 TIMOTHY R. HINKIN AND CHESTER A. SCHRIESHEIMTable4PowerScaleFourth-OrderPartial Correlations With Satisfaction andCommitment

Powerbase A

Satisfaction OrganizationalGlobal Technical Humanrelations commitmentB C A B C A B C A B C

Reward .01 .09 .04 .05 .02 .04 .01 .02 .04 .04 .11 .28Coercive -.23 -.29 -.14 -.26 -.38 -.19 -.28 -.34 -.26 -.31 -.29 .06Legitimate -.01 .05 .07 .01 .08 .08 -.05 .03 .03 .07 .06 .03Expert .30 .14 .32 .39 .43 .42 .22 .32 .27 .08 .14 .17Referent .32 .24 .11 .19 .23 .10 .36 .29 .20 .14 -.11 .09Note. In Sample A (N = 251), correlations attain significance at .10 (p < .05) and at .15 (p < .01);inSample B(N =375), correlationsattain significanceat .09(p < .05)and at .14(p < .01);in SampleC(N = 220),correlations attainsignificanceat.1 1 p


7/7

NE W POWER SCALES 567Joreskog,K. G., &Sorbom,D.(1985).LISREL vi.Mooresville,IN:Sci-

entificSoftware.Kanter,R. M.(1979).Power failureinmanagement circuits. HarvardBusiness Review 57 ,65-75.Korman,A. K.(1974).Contingencyapproachestoleadership.In J. G.Hunt& L. L.Larson (Eds.),Contingencyapproaches to leadership(pp.189-195). Carbondale:Southern Illinois UniversityPress.Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In

M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology (pp. 189-195). Chicago: Rand McNally.McClelland,D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience.NewYork:I r-vington.McClelland,D. C., &Burnham,D. H.(1976).Poweris thegreat moti-vator.Harvard Business Review 54,100-110.Mintzberg,H . (1983). Power in and around organizations.Englewood

Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.Mowday,R.T.,Steers,R. M., &Porter,L. W.(1979).Themeasurementoforganizationalcommitment.Journal of VocationalBehavior 14,

224-247.Nunnally,J. C. (1978).Psychometric theory.Ne wYork:McGraw-Hill.Patchen,M.(1974).Thelocusandbasisofinfluenceon organizational

decisions. Organizational Behavior an d Human Performance, 11 ,195-221.Pfeffer, J.(1981).Power in organizations.Marshfield, MA:Pitman.

Podsakoff, P.M.,&Schriesheim,C. A.(1985).Field studieso fFrench

andRaven sbasesofpower: Critique,reanalysis,andsuggestionsforfutureresearch.PsychologicalBulletin 97 ,387-411.Podsakoff, P.M.,Todor, W.D.,Grover, R. A., &Huber,V. L. (1984).Situational moderatorsof leader rewardandpunishment behaviorFact or fiction?Organizational Behaviora nd Human Performance,34,21-63.Porter,L. W, Steers, R. M.,Mowday,R. T, &Boulian,P. V.(1974).Organizational commitment,job satisfaction, and turnover amongpsychiatric technicians.Journalof Applied Psychology, 59 ,603-609.Schriesheim,C. A.(1978).Development validation an d application ofne w leadership behaviora nd expectancy research instruments. Un-published doctoral dissertation, Graduate School ofBusiness, OhioState University, Columbus.Schriesheim, C.A .,Hinkin,T, &Podsakoff,P. M.(1985). Have mea-surement shortcomings produced erroneous resultsin fieldinvestiga-tionsof the fiveFrenchandRaven powerbases?Anempirical exami-nation.Proceedingsof th e Southern Management Association 100-102.Schwab,D. P.(1980). Construct validityin organization behavior. InB. M. Staw & L. L.Cummings(Eds.),Research in organizationalbehavior(Vol.2,pp.3-43).Greenwich,CT:JA IPress.Yukl,G. A. (1981).Leadershipi n organizations.Englewood Cliffs, NJ :Prentice-Hall.

Weiss,D.J.,Dawis, R. V., England,G. W, &Lofquist,L. H. (1967).Manual for th e Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota, Industrial Relations Center.

AppendixFinalScaleItems'

Instructions: Belowis alistofstatements whichmay beusedindescrib-ing behaviors that supervisors inwork organizationscandirecttowardtheir subordinates. First carefully read each descriptive statement,thinkingintermsofyour supervisor.Then.decidetowhat extentyouagree that your supervisor coulddothistoyou. Markthenumber whichmost closelyrepresentshow you feel. Use the following numbers foryour answers:

(5 )=strongly agree(4) =agree(3 )=neither agreenor disagree(2) = disagree(1 )= strongly disagreeMy supervisorcan . . .(RewardPower)02. increasemy paylevel.27 . influencemygettinga payraise.33. providemewith special benefits.38. influencemygettinga promotion.(Coercive Power)04. givemeundesirablejob assignments.18. makemyworkdifficultfor me.21 . make things unpleasant here.22. make beingatwork distasteful.

(LegitimatePower)07 . makemefeelthat Ihave commitments tomeet.30 . makemefeellikeIshouldsatisfy my job requirements.39 . giveme thefeelingIhave responsibilities to fulfill.42. makem erecognize that Ihave tasksto accomplish.(Expert Power)16. givemegoodtechnical suggestions.19. share with mehis/her considerable experienceand/ortraining.31 . provide mewith sound job-related advice.40. providem ewithneeded technical knowledge.(ReferentPower)03 . makemefeelvalued.06. makemefeellike he/she approvesof me.08. makem efeelpersonally accepted.12. makemefeel important.

' Theitems shownaregrouped forreader convenience only;theitemnumber corresponds to theorder actually usedon theoriginal surveyquestionnaire.Received January 7,1988Revision receivedOctober28,1988Accepted November1,1988

Documents

Original Instrument Leader Power