The Journal of Values-Based Leadership The Journal of Values-Based Leadership

Volume 13 Issue 2 Summer/Fall 2020 Article 15

July 2020

Leader Influence: A Research Review of French & Raven’s (1959) Leader Influence: A Research Review of French & Raven’s (1959)

Power Dynamics Power Dynamics

Mary Kovach Miami University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl

Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Business and Corporate

Communications Commons, Human Resources Management Commons, Organizational Behavior and

Theory Commons, Other Business Commons, and the Sports Management Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Kovach, Mary (2020) "Leader Influence: A Research Review of French & Raven’s (1959) Power Dynamics," The Journal of Values-Based Leadership: Vol. 13 : Iss. 2 , Article 15. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.22543/0733.132.1312 Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol13/iss2/15

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Business at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Values-Based Leadership by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]

Leader Influence: A Research Review of French

& Raven’s (1959) Power Dynamics

Abstract After reviewing nearly 70 years of research, this manuscript seeks to compile study results to better understand leader influence by employing French and Raven’s (1959) power dynamics. Divided into two categories (i.e. formal and informal), these five power dynamics include referent, expert, legitimate, coercive, and reward power. Each power dynamic is categorized accordingly and dissected between scholarly research and applicable workplace settings between supervisors (i.e. leaders) and employees. Behavioral outcomes from a subordinate standpoint are discussed, and this manuscript concludes that the power dynamic that characterizes different workplace relationships between supervisors and employees has significant effects on work productivity and employee motivation.

Introduction In the late 1950s, John R. P. French and Bertram Raven (1959) analyzed the complexities of

power and determined that there were five dynamics (or bases) of power: referent, expert,

legitimate, reward, and coercive. They defined power as the primary source in achieving

results or compliance from another individual. Since then, power has been explored,

dissected, and defined in a number of ways. Vecchio (1997) explained power as having the

aptitude to modify one’s behavior, causing a different outcome. Keltner, Gruenfeld, and

Anderson (2003) defined power as the ability to alter another’s state by either providing

assistance or withholding something of value. Biong, Nygaard, and Silkoset (2010) concluded

that power was a strong tool for managers to motivate and manage. Anderson, John, and

Keltner (2012) presumed that one’s power is relative to the relationships one has with other

individuals in the group. Mysen, Svensson, and Hogevold (2012) concluded that power was

difficult to recognize, describe, and verify, and held by those in dominant positions. Randolph

and Kemery (2011) studied power in managers and determined that in order for managers to

exemplify power, there must be a source for this influence. They concluded that the power

bases identified by French and Raven (1959) were these sources of influence and likewise,

the source of employees feeling empowered.

In summary, power is the potential influence that one has over another person or group, and

generally, the one with the power has control over something the other person (or group)

desires. The common theme of these definitions is that objectives were attained (or behavior

was changed) because of an influencing party. In this manuscript, the focus is on French and

Raven’s (1959) bases of power (i.e. power dynamics) because the presence of each power

Mary Kovach Miami University,

Oxford, Ohio, US

dynamic has a significant impact on not only outcomes, but also the method of achieving

those outcomes.

French and Raven’s (1959) Power Dynamics Robbins and Judge (2017) defined power as not only the capacity to influence power, but

when the influencee acts in accordance with the influencer’s desires. They argued that an

individual can hold power, but does not necessarily need to use it (partially or in full capacity).

In Field Theory in Social Science (1951), Lewin said, “Power among parties is determined by

their current states, actions, and possible futures. This implies that power can be exercised,

and can influence outcomes, but can also be defined as the potential to influence others”

(Pratto et al., 2008, p. 379). The degree to which a supervisor exerts influence, and the

exhibited power will affect the employee’s inherent motivation to be successful.

If a supervisor projects an unfavorable influence, the employee is likely to feel intimidated,

unappreciated, or any other unwelcomed emotion. Thus, the employee would not be as

motivated to be successful due to the current state of the supervisor-employee relationship.

On the other hand, if a supervisor exhibits a favorable influence, the employee is likely to feel

valued, important, and a contributor to the project’s success. Thus, the employee would be

more motivated to be successful because of the supervisor-employee relationship. Note, the

examples of both scenarios are based on this single-instance, rather than the prior

relationship history.

The five power dynamics (or bases of power) identified by French and Raven (1959) include

referent, expert, legitimate, reward, and coercive. Coercive power is the only power base with

negative influence. The other four are considered relatively positive by both the influencee

and influencer. Additionally, “dynamics” and “bases” of power are interchangeable

throughout the manuscript. These five power dynamics have classification into other

categories – formal or informal.

Power Categories: Formal and Informal Power is segregated into two categories: formal and informal. Specifically, referent and expert

power are categorized as informal power because they exist without any recognized formal

authority. This essentially means that an individual can demonstrate either referent or expert

power without having any official authority or employees align under him or her in an

organizational hierarchy (i.e. no direct managerial span of control). The other three types of

power (reward, coercive, and legitimate) considered as formal power because they exist

because of holding a formal position of authority (French & Raven, 1959; Randolph & Kemery,

2011). As a result of each of these various power dynamics, one person or group is in the

dominant position and another person or group is being influenced or in a submissive role.

Another way to break down these power dynamics is to categorize them as coercive and

noncoercive (legitimate, reward, expert, and referent) (Biong et al., 2010). It should be noted

that the delivery approach of the influencer affects the receiving party as well as the

outcome(s) of the situation.

Using different types of power in various situations is instrumental in motivating employees.

The behavior of a supervisor is reflected by a number of circumstances including: 1) the

current professional relationship with his or her individual employees and team collectively,

2) the attitude and loyalty the employees have towards this supervisor (or organization), 3)

the ability to be (and feel) successful, 4) previous outcomes based on similar experiences

within the organization, and 5) the supervisor’s motivation to be successful. All of these

factors play a vital role for supervisors who define and redefine themselves as leaders as they

acquire different types of power, and sometimes the thrill of power drives them to want to

acquire more power (Prato et al., 2008).

Informal Power: Referent and Expert Referent and expert powers are the two types of French and Raven’s (1959) power dynamics

categorized as informal because neither of these two powers require a formal position of

authority. Referent power (sometimes known as personal power) is based on respect and

admiration an individual earned from others over time. It is defined as “individuals who are

attractive and socially adept – because of charisma, energy, stamina, political smarts, gift of

gab, vision, or some other characteristic – are imbued with power independent of other

sources” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 203). Another way of looking at this power in today’s

American culture is that those with strong reputations like celebrities sell products (p. 203).

Consider Oprah Winfrey, who is not an expert on jeans or skin care, for example. Because of

her broad likeability and charisma, consumers blindly purchased items she liked because she

identified them as one of her favorite products. This is the likability factor, illuminated by those

who hold referent power. Vecchio (1997) stated that those with referent power influence

others through alluring dispositions (including style, appearance, or through the values they

exhibit) and inspire approval, respect, and admiration to want to associate with them. Those

who possess this power maintain it for their likeability, admiration, and behavior. In fact,

scholars argued that referent power is “the most important managerial tool” (Biong et al.,

2010, p. 358).

Moreover, exercising referent power may be a method to obtain legitimate power in a

workplace setting, particularly for those holding junior positions in organizations with

aspirations of career advancement. These individuals can demonstrate this power to

showcase leadership capabilities. For instance, without having any direct reports, a young

professional can create a pleasant work environment, treat others with respect, provide high

quality output, and share knowledge willingly. He or she can be a valuable go-to resource and

gain the respect and admiration through work ethic, behavior, and likeability. Because of all

of these favorable characteristics, this person has the potential for a leadership position

consideration. However, both sides of reward power should be considered. There is potential

caution for those promoted because they hold referent power. They may be likable, but they

could lack integrity or the necessary skills to be successful; thus, using their respective

referent power to alienate others, cause harm or gain an unfair advantage.

From a research standpoint, Elangovan and Xie (1999) concluded that a positive correlation

existed between supervisors demonstrating referent power and subordinates who maintained

an internal locus of control and that referent power positively related to work effort. However,

the referent power of a supervisor was associated with higher stress levels when paired with

an employee with an internal locus of control.

Expert power, the second form of power categorized as informal, is based on an individual’s

advanced knowledge about a project, a given field or some other specialty, based on

education and/or experience, and is not dependent on any formal position in an organization

or social status. French and Raven (1959) defined it as power based upon both informational

influence and the credibility of the person. Those with expert power add value to organizations,

not only providing others with good technical knowledge or skills, but offering guidance and

advice for the betterment of others. Businesses that capitalize on this expertise create a long-

standing knowledge base that is imperative for the long-term success of many organizations.

Losing these types of experts within an organization can be detrimental to the organization’s

operations. This type of power crosses disciplines and includes roles such as accountants,

legal experts, technical managers, doctors, plumbers, coaches, counselors, electricians, and

technology specialists. Unlike other powers, an individual does not need to hold a position of

authority to possess expert power.

Expert power is often well-received by employees. Elangovan and Xie (1999) confirmed that

subordinates with an internal locus of control demonstrated an increased motivation when

submitting to expert power (i.e. expert power positively related to work effort), but there was

a negative correlation for employees with an external locus of control. Often times the delivery

of the expert knowledge makes a difference (nobody likes to work with a know-it-all), but

experts are often sought after in the corporate environment to further a project or initiative.

Their insight and knowledge can provide sizable benefits resulting in profitability, a reduction

in the duration of the project, and experience/learning for the employee to carry forward

throughout his or her career. Most often, employees do not feel threatened and are happy to

work with an expert.

Formal Power: Legitimate, Reward, and Coercive Three types of power (legitimate, reward, and coercive) are categorized as formal power.

French and Raven (1959) defined legitimate power as “the legitimate right of some other

individual or groups to prescribe behavior or beliefs for a person” (p. 265). They provide three

different bases for legitimate power, which include culture, acceptance of social structure,

and designation by a legitimizing agent. This is actual authority (or power) an individual holds

in a formal organization based on a predetermined hierarchical structure. Some examples of

exercising legitimate power in the workplace include hiring and terminating employees,

completing performance appraisals, setting behavioral expectations, and delegating tasks.

Elangovan and Xie (1999) researched the perception of power and impact on locus of control,

and they found that legitimate power had a stronger bearing on those with an internal locus

of control. They concluded, “supervisor power constitutes a key source of environmental

stimulus for employees, the role of the individual differences in perceptions of and reaction

to supervisor power merits critical attention” (p. 360). Furthermore, legitimate power has the

greatest opportunity to exhibit fungibility. This is the ability to utilize current power to gain

additional power (Berdahl, 2008). Often supervisors demonstrating strong performance are

awarded with additional responsibilities including a greater span of control. However,

legitimate power can be immediately eliminated once the position is eliminated or an

individual no longer holds the position. Additionally, “there is an underlying threat that

noncompliance by the subordinate… will entail sanctions” (Biong, et al., 2010, p. 345).

Supervisors are expected to behave in noncoercive, ethical manners when demonstrating

power (Biong et al., 2010). Understanding the variation in these dyads as potential predictors

in the workplace to capitalize on supervisor behavior, employee output, and employee

motivation. Sometimes categorized under legitimate power, supervisors utilize both of these

power dynamics (coercive and reward) to demonstrate influence and initiate (or motivate) a

response from the employee.

The second power categorized as formal is reward power. It is opposite of coercive power.

This is the ability “to give or withhold rewards based on performance as a major source of

power that allows managers to have a highly motivated workforce” (Jones & George, 2015, p.

333). This is the idea of adding a positive factor to create a positive environment, or removing

a negative factor to create a positive environment (Robbins & Judge, 2015) with the

understanding that positive working environments result in increased employee effort. For

example, one reason a supervisor exhibits reward power is to motivate an employee to

replicate a particular behavior or produce a similar outcome. The intention is to create a

positive environment within the workplace that serves to motivate employees. Thus, the

rewarded employee becomes an example for employee standards and creates an optimal

relationship between the supervisor and employee.

French and Raven (1959) found that applying a reward power-type of system led to increased

production through monitoring piece-work in a factory-based scenario. Like coercive power,

reward power naturally falls under the formal authority hierarchy. While it may be difficult to

materialistically reward a large number of associates, a good supervisor can eliminate

roadblocks to ensure the greatest possible outcomes and grant equity within those outcomes.

Examples of reward power include promoting employees, awarding employees, using words

of encouragement to make employees feel valued, granting additional time off, issuing

monetary awards, or empowering employees. Empowerment is a form of motivation. Studies

have set the stage demonstrating the direct effect of power on employee effort by using

empowerment (Locke, 1986; Randolph & Kemery, 2011). These scholars proved the

importance of empowerment in the dyadic relationships between supervisors and employees

(Locke, 1986). This included using reward power as an empowerment tool for employees to

motivate employees, i.e. increase effort. Similarly, Randolph, and Kemery (2011) confirmed

a positive relationship between supervisors using reward power and empowering employees.

Ironically, Hegtvedt (1988) uncovered that individuals who were in a lower-powered position

were perceived as more powerful when withholding rewards. In creating this inequitable

situation (i.e. power manipulation), lower-powered individuals were perceived as more

influential. This could be a sign of coercive power.

The final of French and Raven’s (1959) power dynamics is coercive, and it is the final power

dynamic categorized as formal power. Coercive power is the ability to penalize others or

remove a positive existing element. Some of the many examples of coercive power used by

supervisors include: publicly shaming someone to gain influence, purposefully withholding

relevant/important information, excluding certain individuals on meeting invitations,

intentionally causing a negative result on a project, not approving time off, sexual harassment,

terminating or threatening to terminate or withhold a promotion, or withholding some other

positive within the environment (i.e. flextime, vacations, bonus opportunities). This power,

when used inappropriately, is not an acceptable practice of management and is often under

the legitimate authority category. With legitimate power, those who have a span of control

(i.e. direct reports) also have the ability to exercise reward or coercive power.

French and Raven (1959) inferred the utilization of coercive power has a direct influence on

an employee’s willingness to have a positive impact or improve productivity. The stronger the

negative influence, the more dependent employees are on this supervisor for future direction

(often for fear of reprimand if delineating from an expected course of action), and are less

likely to initiate any type of empowerment he or she may have been granted. An organization

that removes a supervisor using coercive power will be seen as more favorable for removing

the negative, but potentially questioned as to how or why that supervisor was granted that

position initially. Sometimes supervisors using coercive power are viewed as bullies. A bully,

for whatever reason, has a need to dominate and remain in a higher position of power. The

other party, whether it be a person or group of individuals, is in position with minimal support

and/or confidence. Additionally, Biong et al. (2010) observed that coercive power should be

avoided, and other researchers backed the notion that coercive power was less influential in

motivating employees (Nesler, Quigley, Aguinis, Lee, & Tedeschi, 1999).

A supervisor exhibits coercive power for a number of reasons. For example, a supervisor may

try to use coercive power to motivate employees to stop a particular negative behavior, such

as underperforming or behavioral issues like consistent absenteeism. In efforts to emphasize

the importance of a given situation, a supervisor may threaten with removing a positive or

introducing a negative to try to initiate a specific response or outcome. Teven (2006) found

that employee perceptions of their immediate supervisor’s use of coercive power “related to

negative interpersonal affect, decreased job satisfaction and resistance” (p. 75). Locke

(1986) resolved that coercive authority did not promote employee responsibility. Ng and

Sorensen (2009) and Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, and De Chermont (2003) both

performed meta-analyses that uncovered similar findings. Specifically, when coercive power

or influence exhibited in the workplace, it resulted in negative outcomes (i.e. stress and

dissatisfaction in the workplace).

Taucean, Tamasila, and Negru-Strauti (2016) conducted a study on leader power in large

organizations, and they concluded that employees’ perception of leader power accounted for

their degree of success within the organization, or lack thereof. Thus, interpreted that

employees who work for supervisors who use coercive power are less likely to motivate their

employees. Examples of such employee behaviors include working reactively (rather than

proactively), completing the bare minimum of required work, or not volunteering for additional

work/special projects. Employees working under a supervisor behaving coercively often have

an increase in health issues as well (Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel, 2008).

Goodstadt and Hjelle (1973) found that those subordinates with an internal locus of control

believed they had the ability to influence situations and could be successful. Likewise, they

concluded those with an external locus of control did not believe they had any control over

various situations, including supervisor influence, and did not expect to have organizational

success.

Conversely, there are supervisors that are not able to understand the value of adjusting

influence to favorably impact employee motivation. Some supervisors strictly use coercive

power, sometimes due to lack of confidence to be an effective authoritative figure (Goodstadt

& Hjelle, 1973), regardless of the employee that reports to him or her. As a result, employees

under this influence may be more or less likely to be motivated.

Therefore, supervisors using either reward or coercive power can have a significant impact in

motivating employees. Supervisors should have the ability to understand how his or her

behavior (or influence) affects employee motivation, and thus, develop a significant

advantage in maintaining a strong dyadic relationship with his or her employees. Supervisors

with this understanding know which type of power (reward or coercive) to exhibit over which

employee in order to instigate, or motivate, a response. Other scholars saw the importance

of supervisor influence and employee locus of control on motivation. In fact, Etzioni (1961)

created a systemic structure to recognize employee responses to power. Similarly, other

research highlighted the interdependent relationship, specifically between supervisors and

employees, and validated the importance it has in the workplace (i.e. increasing employee

efforts) (McShane & Von Glinow, 2003). Other scholars saw the value of studying power and

expanded upon French and Raven’s (1959) power research, explaining the psychology of

individual employee resulting from supervisor influence (Farmer & Aguinis, 2005).

Specifically, they examined subordinate outcomes by way of supervisor influence and

concluded the supervisor-employee relationship was a powerful tool in determining employee

effort. Thus, supervisor power and employee characteristic alignment showed positive

outcomes.

Additional research proved the value of this supervisor-employee dyadic relationship in the

workplace. For example, the greater the interdependence between supervisors and

employees proved to create a stronger the dyadic relationship between the two (i.e. increasing

trust, work effort) which resulted in a more significant impact on organizations and business

goals (Sheu, 2014). It was also validated that supervisor-employee working collaborations had

the potential to result in valuable synergies that otherwise would not be recognized (Nyaga,

Lynch, Marshall, & Ambrose, 2013), further arguing for the need of additional research on

specific employee characteristics to improve this dyad. Olekalns and Smith (2013) also

evaluated power in dyadic relationships in workplace settings. Their study revealed