the exercise of upward influence in organizations

The Exercise of Upward Influence in OrganizationsAuthor(s): Richard T. MowdaySource: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 137-156Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management,Cornell UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392437 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 19:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.47 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:09:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohn

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392437?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Exercise of Upward Influence in Organizations

Richard T. Mowday

? 1978 by Cornell University. 0001-8392178/2301-0137$00.75

This research was partially supported by grants from the Graduate Division of the University of California - Irvine and the Office of Naval Research, Contracts N00014-69-A-0200-9001 NR 151-315 and N00014-76-C-0164 NR 170-812. An ear- lier version of this paper was presented at the Academy of Management meeting in Kansas City, August 1976. The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable as- sistance provided by Lyman W. Porter, Henry Tosi, Joseph McGuire, Newton Margulies, Ray Oliver, and Richard Steers at various stages of the investigation.

March 1978, volume 23

This study examined selected aspects of the exercise of influence in educational organizations. Power motivation, characteristics of the exercise of influence, and influence effectiveness were studied. A sample of elementary school principals indicated their perceptions and behavioral intentions relevant to the exercise of upward influence in three common decision situations. The results of the study suggest that principals who were rated high in influence activity could be characterized by both high instrumental and intrinsic power motivation, as well as high self-perceptions of power. The type of decision to be influenced and timing of the influence attempt were found to be related to choices among alternative influence targets and the likelihood of using various methods of influence. The likelihood of using manipulation as a method of influence was found to differentiate principals rated high in influence effectiveness from principals rated low, with high effectiveness principals indicating they were more likely to use manipulation. Suggestions were made for future research on the role of influence in organizations.*

Power, influence, and political behavior are ubiquitous phenomena in formal organizations. It is commonly recognized, however, that the study of power and influence is a relatively neglected area of organizational research. Since Cartwright (1959) first chided social psychologists for being "soft" on power, numerous writers at fairly regular intervals have commented on the seeming "dearth" of research on power and related phenomena in organizations (Schopler, 1965; Thompson, 1967; Pollard and Mitchell, 1972; Porter, 1976). As a result, our understanding of the role of power in organizations remains limited.

Traditionally, management theorists and organizational sociologists have been interested in how organizations control the use of power and influence by their members. This research has generally focused on the hierarchical authority system and bureaucratic rationality, although the adequacy of these concepts as general frameworks for understanding behavior in organizations has been seriously questioned by a number of writers (Dalton, 1959; March, 1962; March and Cyert, 1963; Thompson, 1967; Child, 1973; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1974; Bacharach and Aiken, 1976; Kanter, 1977; Pfeffer, 1.977.) Since the ability to influence decisions is not entirely dependent upon formal position in the organization (Mechanic, 1962), power and influence have been high- lighted as critical variables of study in understanding behavior in organizations. While authority refers to legitimate power based on formal position, power and influence are broader concepts referring to the generalized ability to change the actions of others in some intended fashion (Dahl, 1957; Katz and Kahn, 1966; Gamson, 1968). Although conceptual distinctions have been drawn between power and influence (Katz and Kahn, 1966), the terms will be used interchangeably in the discussion that follows.

Recently, research on power (Gamson, 1968; Hickson et al., 1971; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1974; Kipnis, 1976; Pfeffer,

137/Administrative Science Quarterly



Salancik, and Leblebici, 1976) has examined the question of why some individuals or groups are more successful than others in achieving their goals in decision-making situations. In trying to account for differential effectiveness in the ability to influence decisions, researchers have examined the bases and distribution of power in organizations (French and Raven, 1959; Hickson et a/., 1971; Hinings et a/., 1974; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1974, 1977). The assumption implicit in this approach is that individuals or groups with relatively high power are more likely to be in a position to impose their preferences on others in decision-making situations. Research evidence has generally supported this assumption (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1974).

Research limited to the bases or amount of power of organizational members, however, may overlook several is- sues that are important to a complete understanding of the role of power in organizations. For example, research dem- onstrating that individuals or groups high in power generally receive a greater proportion of organizational resources (budget) provides little information about theprocess through which a given base of power is translated into decision outcomes. The exercise of influence involves strategic decisions about who is to be influenced and when and how influence is to be exercised (Michener and Burt, 1975). The effectiveness with which these decisions are made is likely to be an important determinant of whether the exercise of influence is successful. Also, powerful individuals may or may not choose to exercise their influence in decision-making situations. As a consequence, inferences about influence over decision outcomes based on assess- ments of the power possessed by decision participants may give a distorted view of the decision-making process. Fur- thermore, research on the process of exercising influence is of interest since skillful political behavior may represent one way individuals with relatively low power can compensate for their power disadvantage in influencing decisions.

This study reports the results of an investigation designed to examine selected aspects of the exercise of influence in an organizational setting. Previous research incorporating testable propositions about the exercise of influence has, with few exceptions (Strauss, 1962; Pettigrew, 1973), been confined to laboratory studies (Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold, 1972; Kipnis, 1976). While this research has provided valuable insights, the extent to which results obtained in the laboratory generalize to organizations in which relationships are more enduring and governed by social norms is difficult to assess. Previous research on leadership and power has generally been limited to downward influence in supervisory-subordinate relationships (Stogdill, 1974; Kipnis, 1976). This study was specifically designed to examine the exercise of upward influence by managers in organizational decision-making situations. It was felt that focusing on upward influence situations would contribute to our knowl- edge by examining influence relations in a fundamentally different leadership context. The manager's ability to exercise influence upward in the organization may be an important determinant of overall leadership effectiveness (PeIz, 1952; Kanter, 1977). Consequently, it is important to learn

1 38/ASQ



Exercise of Upward Influence

more about this somewhat neglected area of leadership. In addition, the upward influence situation may provide a particularly good setting for research on the process of exercising influence. Since the manager is at a relative power disadvantage, strategic decisions associated with the exercise of influence may take on increased significance.

Three aspects of the exercise of influence were selected for study based upon the previous literature (Cartwright, 1965; Michener and Burt, 1975; Kipnis, 1976): (1) power motivation, (2) characteristics of influence attempts, and (3) determinants of effectiveness of influence.

Power Motivation

The research question of central importance is to identify those characteristics that differentiate individuals who are active in exercising influence, i.e., who have high power motivation, from those who are not. Power motivation is likely to be affected by both the characteristics of individuals and their perceptions of the situation in which influence is to be exercised. The literature suggests at least three factors that must be taken into account (Cartwright, 1965; Kipnis, 1976): (1) intrinsic motivation, (2) instrumental motivation, and (3) self-perceptions of power.

Intrinsic motivation. This is satisfaction derived from the process of exercising influence itself. For purposes of this study, intrinsic motivation was operationalized by two needs that appear particularly relevant to the exercise of influence in organizational settings: the need for power and the need for achievement.

The need for power is characterized by attempts to control the environment and influence and direct other people (Jackson, 1967; McClelland and Watson, 1973; Winter, 1973). Previous research has found that individuals with a high need for power are more likely to prefer jobs where leadership is possible and actively attempt to influence others in small groups (Birch and Veroff, 1966; Winter, 1973). Individuals with a high need for power can be expected to take an activist role with respect to their work environment and thus more frequently initiate influence attempts directed toward affecting the outcome of important decisions. For such individuals, primary satisfaction may be gained from the process of influencing others.

Individuals with a high need for achievement are generally described in terms of task orientation, aspirations to achieve moderately difficult goals, and a positive response to com- petition (McClelland et al., 1953; Jackson, 1967; Steers, 1975). Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold (1972), view the need for achievement as related to the more general concept of self-confidence in influence transactions. These au- thors suggest that individuals with a high need for achievement are generally more confident that influence attempts they initiate will be successful. Consequently, it was predicted that individuals in the organization with a high need for achievement would more frequently initiate influence attempts. Such a relationship may be particularly likely in situations where the exercise of influence is instrumental to task accomplishment. The exercise of influ-

1 39/ASQ



ence both upward and downward in the organization may be an important factor in the ability of managers to perform their job (Kanter, 1977). Where the exercise of influence facilitates the performance of a work role, managers with a high need for achievement may gain intrinsic satisfaction from the process of exercising influence as well as from subsequent task accomplishment.

Instrumental motivation. The exercise of influence can be viewed as a behavioral act directed toward the attainment of specific goals in the work place. Instrumental power motivation has most often been conceptualized within an expectancy theory or subjective expected utility theory framework (Harsanyi, 1962; Cartwright, 1965; Nagel, 1968; Pollard and Mitchell, 1972; Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold, 1972). In both approaches it is assumed that the person exercising influence cognitively evaluates the probability of successful influence and the net costs or benefits associated with alternative courses of action. The influencer is further assumed to choose the course of action which maximizes the expected value of the outcome. In other words, individuals are predicted to exercise influence in situations where both the perceived probability of success and the anticipated value of the outcome of successful influence are relatively high.

Instrumental approaches to power motivation provide the closest link between the individual contemplating influence and the situation in which influence is to be exercised. In cognitively evaluating probabilities and outcomes associated with alternative courses of action, the influencer is likely to take a number of situational factors into account. For example, the salience of the decision (Abell, 1975) is likely to affect the anticipated value of the outcome of successful influence. When a decision is considered relatively unimpor- tant, the anticipated value of the outcome of influencing the decision is likely to be low. Costs associated with the influence attempt (Harsanyi, 1962) may also be considered in determining the value of successful influence. In calculat- ing the perceived probability of successful influence, the influencer may take into account the expected actions or reactions of others in the decision situation and responses of those in a position of authority. Despite the intuitive ap- peal of instrumental approaches to power motivation, few studies (French, Morrison, and Levinger, 1960; Zipf, 1960) have operationalized measures which examine instrumental behavior in the exercise of influence.

Instrumental power motivation was operationalized in this study in terms of a simplified expectancy theory model incorporating two components: (1) the perceived probability of successfully influencing a decision, and (2) the anticipated value of the outcome of successful influence. Although there is some disagreement in the literature concerning how and whether expectancy and valence measures should be combined, these two variables were multiplied, following Vroom (1964), to form a measure of motivational force to exercise influence. A multiplicative combination was examined in this study since it most closely conforms to previous theory and research, and it is intuitively reasonable to assume that -influence would not be

1 40/ASQ




exercised unless both the probability of success and the anticipated value of the outcome of successful influence were high. It was predicted that the measure of motivational force to exercise influence would be positively related to the level of influence activity exhibited by managers in organizational decision situations.

Self-perceptions of power. In previous research objective measures of power have been related to the outcomes of organizational decision processes (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1974). In determining powerrnotivation, however, the actual amount of power possessed by an individual may have less significance than the manager's self-perceptions of power. Schopler and Layton (1972) suggest that self- perceptions of power are developed through interactions with others. Individuals are more likely to attribute high power to themselves when a change in the person being influenced is consistent with an influence attempt, but not consistent with the person's state prior to the influence. In other words, high self-perceptions of power result when we change the behavior of another in a manner that was unlikely to occur in the absence of the exercise of influence (Dahl, 1957).

Several writers have suggested that self-perceptions of power are related to high levels of power motivation (Levinger, 1959; Cartwright, 1965; Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold, 1972). In one study, Levinger (1959) induced high self-perceptions of power in experimental subjects and found moderate relationships between such perceptions and a measure of influence activity. In the present study, it was predicted that managers with high self-perceptions of power would be more likely to exhibit high power motivation in the work place than managers with low self- perceptions of power. No attempt was made in this study, however, to trace the development of such self- perceptions.

It is important to recognize that the three components of power motivation are related. For example, high self- perceptions of power are likely to affect the perceived probability of successfully exerting influence. Also, Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold (1972), suggest that a high need for achievement may serve to bias the perceived probability of successful influence. It is important, therefore, to analyze the determinants of power motivation within a multivariate framework.

Characteristics of the Influence Attempt

The exercise of influence can be viewed as a purposeful act in which the individual exerting influence (influence agent) must make strategic choices among alternative influence targets in the organization and among methods of influence to use in the influence attempt (Michener and Burt, 1975). Factors affecting both of these choices were examined in this study.

Influence target. Most studies examining characteristics of the exercise of influence hold the target of influence constant (Rosenberg and Pearlin, 1962; Kipnis and Cosentino, 1969). Organizational decision making, however, is a pro-

141 /ASQ



cess characterized by a large number of participants who may differ with respect to their potential influence over the decision outcome (Pettigrew, 1972; Patchen, 1974). Influ- ence agents are likely to have some discretion in the choice of a target, even though the formal decision-making channels are specified. Lack of agreement among managers in the choice of an influence target has been demonstrated by Filley and Grimes (1967). They found little agreement among respondents concerning whom they would approach to influence the outcome of eight hypothetical decisions in an organization.

Tedeschi, Schlenker and Linkskold (1972), indicate that the major consideration in the choice of an influence target is the expectation that the target controls access to the important values desired, although they hypothesize that people tend to go through the channels of authority. This is pre- sumably the path of least resistance in selecting a target and involves lower potential costs in exercising influence. The probability of successfully influencing a decision, however, may increase in certain situations by choosing a target outside the chain of command with respect to the decision to be influenced. For example, it may be necessary to go over the head of your immediate superior in situations where he or she is believed to be unsympathetic to your goals. The propensity of influence agents to choose an influence target either inside or outside the chain of command was examined in this study. Two factors were hypothesized to affect this choice: (1) the nature of the decision to be influenced, and (2) the timing of the influence attempt. Influ- ence agents are likely to approach different individuals in attempting to influence different decisions even though the formal chain of command with respect to these different decisions is the same. This choice may be highly dependent on perceptions of the ability of others to influence the decision outcome (Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold, 1972) and on informal interaction patterns in the organization. Fur- thermore, since decision making in organizations is frequently a process that takes place over a period of time, the role of various individuals in the decision process may change as the decision moves through the organization. Individuals who are influential during the early stages of a decision process may be less influential during the late stages. In examining the timing of the influence attempt in relation to the choice of an influence target, the nature of the decision to be influenced was held constant so the two predictions concerning this choice were not confounded.

Methods of influence. The second characteristic of the exercise of influence investigated in this study concerned the likelihood of using various methods of influence. Al- though a number of writers have discussed alternative methods of influence (Gamson, 1968; Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold, 1972), there appears to be little agreement in the literature on a typology of methods. A complete review of this literature (Mowday, 1975) suggested the five methods of influence examined in this study: (1) threats, (2) legitimate authority, (3) persuasive arguments, (4) rewards or exchange of favors, and (5) providing information in such a

1 42/ASO




way that the recipient is not aware he or she is being influenced. Following Gilman (1962) and Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold (1972), the last method of influence was interpreted as manipulation.

Previous research has found the choice of a method to be related to both characteristics of the person exerting influence (years of supervisory experience, self-confidence, internal-external control orientation) and characteristics of the influence situation (nature of decision to be influenced, goals or purpose of the influence attempt, supervisory span of control) (Kipnis, 1976). In addition, choice of a method has been hypothesized to depend upon the difference in power between the person exerting influence and the person to be influenced (Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold, 1972; Kipnis, 1976).

Two factors were predicted to affect the likelihood of using alternative methods of influence: the target of influence holding decision situation constant and the timing of the influence attempt holding both decision situation and target of influence constant. Influence agents may select the method of influence which they believe to be most appro- priate and potentially effective considering the person to be influenced (Raven and Kruglanski, 1970) or the stage of the decision process. Methods of influence likely to be effective during the early stages of a decision process may be less successful during the late stages. No specific predictions were made concerning which of the several methods of influence studied were most likely to be used in various situatio ns.

Determinants of Influence Effectiveness

Relatively little is known about the determinants of effectiveness in the exercise of influence. Much of the literature that addresses this issue is biographical (Evans and Novak, 1966), derived from case studies (Pettigrew, 1973), or re- lates overall leadership effectiveness as defined by group productivity to the possession and use of various bases of social power (Bachman, Smith, and Slesinger, 1966; Stog- dill, 1974).

I nfluence effectiveness is perhaps most directly operationalized by the outcomes of decision-making processes (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1974). Managers who are effective in achieving their goals through the exercise of influence would be considered to have higher effectiveness than those less successful. Operationalizing influence effectiveness in this way, however, presents a number of difficult methodological problems. It is often impossible to determine the goals and preferences of actors in a decision situation (Abell, 1975). It is also difficult to isolate the effects of one manager's exercise of influence from the actions of others both inside and outside the decision situation (DahI, 1957; Gamson, 1968). Because of these potential problems, ratings of influence effectiveness collected from the immediate superior of each manager were used in the study. The advantages and disadvantages associated with using supervisory ratings of influence effectiveness are discussed in detail below.

1 43/ASQ



Attention was directed in this study toward the relationship between influence effectiveness and characteristics of the process of exercising influence. The intent of the analysis was to determine whether managers rated high in effectiveness exercised influence in a manner different from managers rated low in effectiveness. More specifically, the relationship between the rated effectiveness of managers and the likelihood that they would use various methods of influence in decision situations was examined. Since there is little previous literature to guide predictions, this analysis was purely exploratory.

METHOD OF STUDY

Research on influence in organizations presents a variety of methodological problems. Not only is the concept of influence difficult to operationalize (Gamson, 1968), but it is also difficult to obtain valid data since individuals who are successful in exercising influence are likely to be secretive about their practices (Kipnis, 1976). The research strategy adopted in this study was a variation on what Gamson (1968) termed an "end-run" approach. The primary focus of the study was on the process of exercising influence rather than on actual influence, thus avoiding the problem of operationalizing influence. Questionnaires were used to gather information from managers on how they would be- have in three organizational decision situations. It was felt that examining behavioral intentions would be less reactive than asking managers how they have behaved in the past. This approach assumes that behavioral intentions are pre- dictive of actual influence behavior. It was also felt that guarantees of anonymity would make respondents less hesitant to discuss their exercise of influence.

Sample and Research Sites

The sample consisted of 65 elementary school principals from three school districts on the West Coast. Sampling only elementary school principals allowed formal position power and role requirements to be held relatively constant in the study. The subjects also provided a sample of managers who were clearly recognized as the spokesmen for their organizational subunits and thus in a position to exercise influence upward in the organization. Furthermore, it was felt that influencing organization-wide decisions (resource allocation) would be an integral part of the principal's role.

The three districts were composed of an approximately equal number of elementary schools and had somewhat similar organization structures. In each district the principals reported to an assistant or deputy superintendent for in- struction. No major differences were found between principals sampled from the three districts in terms of age, tenure in the district, or tenure on the job of principal, so responses were combined for purposes of analysis.

Data Collection

Questionnaires were distributed by the researcher and re- turned directly to the university by mail. Principals were told that the purpose of the study was to examine the use of

1 44/ASQ




influence by managers to achieve goals associated with the performance of their job. A great deal of emphasis was placed on the anonymity and confidentiality of responses in explaining the study because of the sensitive nature of the topic. Questionnaires were individually coded, so that responses could later be matched with the independent behavioral ratings. The average response rate across the three districts was 83 percent, which was judged to be quite good given the use of a mail survey.

Research Instruments

Decision situations. Respondents completed a questionnaire designed for this study that asked them to indicate their perceptions and behavioral intentions with respect to three decisions commonly faced by principals in school districts: (1) the allocation of budgetary resources not man- dated by law, (2) reclassification or promotion of a subordinate in the absence of currently available budgetary resources, and (3) securing resources to undertake a special project in addition to the basic budget allocation. Principals were also asked to distinguish between the early and late stages of the budgetary process in answering several questions to introduce the consideration of timing in the study.

These decisions were chosen for study for several reasons. First, each decision involved the allocation of scarce resources within the organization. Resource allocation decisions affect each principal directly and thus are likely to be highly salient. Gamson (1968) predicted that the salience of a decision would be positively related to the likelihood that individuals would attempt to influence the outcome and Salancik and Pfeffer (1974) found that the scarcity of resources lead to the exercise of power in budgetary decisions. Second, the determination of the final decision was outside the sphere of authority of the principal and thus the exercise of upward influence was necessary to affect the outcome. Finally, these decisions may be similar to those faced by managers in many other organizations. As a result, the findings of this study may generalize to other types of organizations as well as elementary school districts. Differ- ences between organizations, however, suggest that such generalizations should be made with caution.

For each decision situation and both the early and late stages of the budgetary process, single items were used to record the principals' perceptions and behavioral intentions related to influencing the decisions. A separate section of the questionnaire was devoted to each decision situation. Each section had a brief description of the decision situation to serve as a reference in answering the questions. Within each section, the questions were asked in the order in which they are presented below.

Motivational force to exert influence. The perceived probability of successfully influencing each decision was measured on an 11-point scale in which the principal indicated the number of chances out of 100 of being successful (e.g., 80 cha nces out of 1 00 corresponded to a n 80 percent probability and was given a score of 9). Principals indicated the anticipated value of the outcome of successful influence by responding to a question that asked them how valuable

1 45/ASQ



they considered a significant increase in, for example, the school budget. Responses were made of a 9-point scale ranging from "not valuable" to "extremely valuable." The questions on perceived probability and anticipated value were multiplicatively combined to calculate a measure of motivational force to exert influence in each decision situation.

Influence targets and methods of influence. Principals were asked to indicate the individual in the district whom they would be most likely to approach in trying to influence each decision and the individual whom they would be next most likely to approach. Principals were free to indicate any individual in answering this question; that is, they were not asked to select among a list of names. For both individuals chosen, principals rated the likelihood of using five methods of influence in attempting to influence the decision: (1) threat (e.g., to go to the school board), (2) appeals to legitimate authority (e.g., school board policies), (3) persuasive arguments, (4) rewards or exchange of favors, and (5) providing information to the individual in such a way that they are not aware you are trying to influence them. As noted previously, the last method of influence was interpreted as "manipulation" (Gilman, 1962; Tedeschi, Schlenker and Linkskold, 1972). The defining characteristic of manipulation appears to be the conscious effort by the influence agent to mask his or her intentions in exercising influence. Ratings were made on a 5-point scale ranging from "very unlikely to use method" to "very likely to use method."

In analyzing the ratings, it was evident that very few principals indicated they would use "threats." Since interviews with school district administrators suggested this was not an uncommon strategy, this finding may reflect a social desirability response bias. The use of threats, however, may only occur when all other methods of influence have failed. These low ratings may therefore also indicate that principals were more likely to use other methods when first initiating influence attempts.

Self-perceptions of influence. Each respondent was asked to provide separate ratings of the overall influence of principals and administrators in the school district, including himself or herself. The self-rating of influence was of particular interest in the study. Influence was defined on the questionnaire as the "general ability to get others to do something they might not otherwise do." Ratings of influence were made on a 9-point scale ranging from "almost no influence" to "very high influence." To ensure variance in the ratings, anchor points for the scale were established by asking principals to use the following rating procedure: first rate the individual they believed had the most influence in the district; next rate the individual they believed had the least influence; complete the ratings for the remaining individuals. This procedure resulted in an adequate level of variance in the ratings.

Need strengths. The needs for power and achievement were measured using the Manifest Needs Questionnaire developed by Steers and Braunstein (1976). This instrument utilizes behaviorally anchored preferences in the work set-

1 46/ASQ




ting to measure need strengths. The -developers of the instrument report acceptable levels of reliability and good convergent and discriminant validity for the scales.

Ratings of influence activity and influence effectiveness. Independent ratings were obtained for each principal on his or her overall level of influence activity in the district and overall effectiveness in exercising influence. Ratings of influence activity were made by the immediate superior of each principal on a 9-point scale ranging from "well below peers" to "well above peers." The effectiveness rating used a 9-point scale ranging from "never effective" to "always effective." Although it was felt that the immediate superior of the principals would be in the best position within the organization to provide ratings of influence activity and effectiveness, securing ratings from this source is not without potential problems. The immediate superior may not always be the target of an influence attempt and thus not in a position to view the complete scope of a principal's influence activity. Furthermore, raters may be placed in a position of having to judge whether they have been successfully influenced. In certain instances, superiors may be unaware that an influence attempt has taken place, e.g., in the case of manipulation, or hesitant to admit they have been influenced, e.g., if a threat had been used. In spite of these potential problems, it was felt that immediate superiors of principals were the best source of information on influence activity and influence effectiveness. The raters expressed little difficulty in completing the ratings and an adequate range was obtained between principals rated high and low in each district. Although raters tended to differentiate among principals rated high, medium, and low, little differentiation was made among principals rated within each of these categories; that is, the ratings more closely approximated a 3-point scale representing high, medium and low. For purposes of analysis, ratings were standardized for each rater (mean zero and standard deviation equal to one) to eliminate the influence of rater response tendencies.

RESULTS

Power Motivation

A measure of motivational force to exert influence was cal- culated separately for the decisions on budget, reclassification, and special projects by multiplicatively combining the perceived probability of successfully exerting influence and the anticipated value of the outcome of successful influence associated with each decision. The independent rating of overall influence activity was examined in relation to the three measures of motivational force to exert influence, need for power, need for achievement, and self- perceptions of power. Since the predictor variables could not be assumed to be independent, a multivariate method of analysis was used. Multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) was chosen to test the relationship since the ratings tended to cluster principals in three groups. Also, since several of the hypotheses were exploratory, the possibility of cur- vilinear relationships could not be precluded. Although MDA is based on a linear model in forming combinations of the

1 47/ASQ



Table 1

Discriminant Weights and Mean Levels of Motivational Force, Need Strengths, and Self-influence Ratings for Low, Medium, and High Influ- ence Activity Principals

Influence Activity

Low Medium High Discriminant Measures (N=7) (N=38) (N=7) Weights

Motivational force Budget decision 21.0 29.9 49.9 .70 Reclassification decision 15.0 30.6 32.6 .13 Special projects decision 45.0 51.8 58.1 -.36

Need for power 2.9 3.3 3.6 .48 Need for achievement 3.4 3.8 4.0 .28 Self-influence rating 4.0 5.3 5.7 .39

Note: Test Statistic=23.2 (12 df), p < .05, f2= 12%

independent variables that maximize discrimination between subjects grouped on the dependent variable, the technique makes no assumptions about the ordering of the groups. Thus, MDA allows for the case where the medium group is differentiated from the high and low groups on a particular measure. Respondents were divided into groups with high, medium, and low influence activity by trichotomizing the distribution of standardized ratings based on scores one standard deviation above and below the mean. The results of this analysis are reported in Table 1. The reduced sample size in this analysis was due to the failure of several respondents to provide self-ratings of influence.

The results of the analysis indicate that influence activity was significantly related to the measures of motivational force, need strengths, and self-perceptions of power. The strength of the multivariate relationship as measured by omega-squared corrected for small samples (Tatsuoka, 1973) indicates that 12 percent of the variance in influence activity was explained by the predictor measures.

An examination of the means and discriminant weights in Table 1 suggests that principals high in influence activity can be described as having both high instrumental and intrinsic motivation to exert influence, as well as high self- perception of influence. The finding that the measures of motivational force associated with the budget decision and, to a lesser extent, the special projects decision discrimi- nated between principals having high and low influence activity provides support for instrumental approaches to power motivation. The results indicate that principals who were active in attempting to influence the outcome of decisions in the school district are more likely to perceive a high probability that such activity would lead to valued outcomes. In addition, it was found that the need for power and self- perceptions of influence also tended to discriminate between principals grouped according to their level of influence activity. These findings are congruent with previous research in which such measures have been found to be related to the propensity to exert influence (Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold, 1972; Winter, 1973).

1 48/ASQ




Characteristics of the Influence Attempt

Influence target. In examining the choice of a target of influence, interviews conducted with administrative personnel in each school district revealed the chain of command was the same for each decision studied and for the two stages of the budgeting process. In other words, in each school district the principal should go to the same individual in an attempt to influence each of these decisions. The choice of different influence targets across the decision situations therefore constituted evidence of the propensity to deviate from the organizationally specified chain of command in exercising influence. A simple fre- quency count found that 59 percent of the principals chose different influence targets for the three resource allocation decisions and 27 percent chose a different target during the early and late stages of the budgeting decision, contrary to what was predicted by Tedeschi, Schlenker, and Linkskold (1972).

To examine the relationship between the choice of a target and the nature of the decision situation, the choice of a target for each decision was divided into two classes: (1) target inside the chain of command, or (2) target outside the chain of command. Cochran's Q-Test (Siegel, 1956) was used to test whether the principal's choice-of a target was systematically related to the type of decision to be influenced. This test provides a method of testing whether three or more sets of frequencies differ when subjects are matched or repeated measures are used. The results indicated that there was a significant relationship between the choice of a target and the type of decision to be influenced (Q=8.6, 2 df, p < .05). For the budget and special projects decisions, respectively, 49 and 51 principals indicated they would stay within the chain of command while 15 and 13 chose a target outside. For the reclassification decision, however, 33 principals chose a target inside the chain of command and 31 indicated they would deviate from organizationally prescribed channels. Closer analysis of the data for the reclassification decision indicated that principals who deviated from the chain of command were likely to approach a staff personnel officer to influence this decision.

A similar analysis was performed to examine the relationship between the choice of a target and the timing of the influence attempt. As before, responses were divided into two classes reflecting the choice of a target inside or outside the chain of command. McNemar's test for the significance of changes (Siegel, 1956) was used to test the relationship. The results demonstrated that the timing of the influence attempt was significantly related to the choice of a target holding decision situation constant (X2=6.8, 1 df, p < .05). Principals were slightly more likely to go outside the chain of command during the late stages of the budgeting process (24 out of 64) than during the early stages (17 out of 64). Analysis of the responses suggests that during the late stages, principals were more likely to go over the head of their immediate superior to the superintendent in making an influence attempt. This finding probably closely reflects the movement of the budgeting decision through the or-

1 49/ASQ



ganization from lower levels during the early stages to the highest levels during the late stages of the process.

Methods of influence. The second characteristic of the exercise of influence examined in the study concerned the likelihood of using five methods of influence in the three decision situations and both stages of the budgeting process. Ratings of the likelihood of using each of the five methods of influence were compared for the two influence targets identified for each of the three decisions studied. In other words, a within-decision analysis was conducted, re- sulting in three comparisons. Comparing the ratings for the two targets named for each decision made it possible to hold constant the effect of type of decision on the choice of a method.

The method involved the calculation of a mean absolute- difference score across the five methods for the two sets of ratings in each comparison. For example, the absolute difference was taken between the likelihood of using persuasion with respect to the first target and the second target, and so forth for each method. If there were no differences in the likelihood of using the methods of influence across the two targets, the mean absolute-difference score would have an expected value of zero. On the other hand, if the likelihood of using the methods differed across the two targets, the mean difference score would have an expected value greater than zero.

The comparison for each of the three decisions was tested by means of a t-test to determine whether the mean difference score differed significantly from zero. The results of the analyses indicated that the mean difference score was significantly different from zero in the budget, reclassification, and special projects decisions (t=3.71, 3.20, 3.33, respectively). All t-values were significant at p < .01 with 52 degrees of freedom. The sample size for this analysis was reduced due to the failure of some respondents to indicate two different influence targets for each decision.

A similar method of analysis was used to determine whether the choice of a method of influence was related to the timing of the influence attempt. The likelihood ratings for the methods of influence were compared for the target of influence that was most likely to be approached during the early and late stages of the budgeting process. In this analysis only responses in which the same individual was chosen as the influence target during the early and late stages of the process were examined (N=47 responses) so that it was possible to hold constant both the target of influence and the type of decision. The results of the analysis indicate the mean absolute-difference score significantly differed from zero (t=3.33, p < .01, 46 df). Although it might be predicted that principals would be more likely to use more "severe" methods of influence, e.g., threats, during the late stages of the process, the results did not support this prediction. No consistent pattern of changes was observed when the ratings for the early and late stages of the decision process were compared.

Influence Effectiveness Relationships between the rating of overall influence effec-

1 50/ASQ




tiveness and the ratings of the likelihood of using five methods of influence were examined separately for all decision situations. Although it is recognized that these analyses are not independent, the relationship was examined for each of the five situations to determine whether consistent results would be found. For each analysis, principals were divided into groups of high, medium, and low effectiveness based on a trichotomization of the distribution of standardized effectiveness ratings. Trichotomization was achieved by dividing the distribution based on scores one standard deviation above and below the mean. A multiple discriminant analysis was run for each decision situation to determine the multivariate relationship between influence effectiveness and the likelihood of using the five methods. The results are presented in Table 2.

As the results indicate, influence effectiveness was significantly related to the choice of a method of influence in four of the five decision situations. No significant relationship was found for the reclassification decision, although the pattern of mean scores found in this analysis was similar to that found in the other decision situations. The strength of these relationships as measured by the corrected omega-

Table 2

Ratings of the Likelihood of Using 5 Methods of Influence by Low-, Medium-, and High-Effectiveness Principals in 3 Decision Situations

Budget decision Reclassification Special Methods of influence decision// projects and effectiveness of Early Late decision# principals Overallt stages* stages?

Threats Low effectiveness 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.00 Medium effectiveness 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 High effectiveness 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Discriminantweights .00 .00 .00 -.36 .75

Legitimate authority Low effectiveness 4.20 4.20 4.30 4.60 4.60 Medium effectiveness 3.90 4.10 4.00 4.40 4.20 High effectiveness 4.10 4.50 4.40 4.30 4.00 Discriminant weights .28 .24 .41 .01 -.11

Persuasive arguments Low effectiveness 3.90 3.90 3.80 4.00 3.70 Medium effectiveness 4.60 4.70 4.70 4.40 4.80 High effectiveness 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.60 4.80 Discriminantweights .01 -.26 -.13 -.04 .97

Rewards Low effectiveness 1.20 1.10 1.20 1.10 1.50 Medium effectiveness 1.60 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.60 High effectiveness 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.30 1.00 Discriminantweights -.73 -.76 -.76 -.44 .56

Manipulation Low effectiveness 1.80 1.90 2.00 1.90 1.90 Medium effectiveness 2.20 2.20 2.00 1.90 1.90 High effectiveness 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.10 3.00 Discriminantweights 1.03 .83 1.06 1.01 -.80

0 ? Low, N= 1 1; medium, N=46; high, N=8 Test statistic= 23.4 (10 df), p < .01, p2=-16%

t 11 Test statistic= 19.9 (10 df), p < .05, f12 12% Test statistic= 13.2 (10 df), p < .05

Test statistic= 20.5 (10 df), p < .05, fQ2= 13% Test statistic=30.8 (10 df), p < .01, Q2=23%

151/ASQ



squared (Tatsuoka, 1973) ranged from 12 percent to 23 percent across the analyses.

An examination of the means and discriminant weights for each analysis suggests that manipulation was the method of influence that most consistently differentiated between principals having high and low effectiveness. For the three budgeting decisions, it was found that high-effectiveness principals were more likely to indicate they would use manipulation than medium- and low-effectiveness principals. It was also found that medium-effectiveness principals indicated they were relatively more likely to use rewards or an exchange of favors than low- or high-effectiveness principals. In the special projects decision, the use of persuasive arguments differentiated the principals of high and medium effectiveness from those rated low in effectiveness. High- effectiveness principals were also relatively more likely to indicate they would use manipulation than were principals in the other groups. The likelihood of using rewards or exchange of favors distinguished low- and medium- effectiveness principals from the high group. Furthermore, medium-effectiveness principals were slightly more likely to indicate they would use a threat.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The broad concern of this study can be summarized by reference to Lasswell's (1 958) classic description of the central issue in research on politics: who gets what, when, and how. Although the study of political behavior has histor- ically been confined to governmental institutions, it is in- creasingly apparent that power and influence play an important role in many types of organizations. This study provides indirect evidence of political behavior in decision making within educational organizations. The finding that principals were likely to select influence targets outside the organizationally specified authority structure depending upon the type of decision to be influenced and the timing of the influence attempt suggests they made strategic choices in exercising influence. (A less plausible alternative explanation is that they were unaware of who they should approach in trying to influence decisions.) Strategic choices were also made in selecting among alternative methods of influence. Principals rated the likelihood of using various methods of influence differently depending upon the person whom they had chosen to influence and the timing of the influence attempt.

Although the exercise of influence by principals appeared to play an important role in the decisions studied, the results suggest that differences exist among principals in their propensity to engage in influence activity. When the question of who is most likely to exercise influence was examined, it was found that principals rated high in influence activity by their superiors were characterized by a higher need for power, self-perceptions of power, and motivational force to exert influence than principals rated low. I n evaluating this fi nding, it is importa nt to recognize that several sources of environmental variation that may

1 52/ASQ




affect influence activity were held constant by sampling individuals at the same level of similar organizations. Previous research has shown that differences in the level of influence activity may exist both within and between organizations. For example, Pfeffer, Salancik, and Leblebici (1976) found that the level of influence activity was related to the amount of uncertainty surrounding strategic decisions about organizational goals and the means of goal attainment, a characteristic that is likely to vary across organizations. Within organizations, the existence of uncertainty appears particularly likely at the managerial levels of the organization (Child, 1973; Kanter, 1977) and it is at this level of the organization that the greatest amount of influence activity is likely to be found. Future research on the determinants of influence activity in organizations therefore needs to incorporate variables reflecting environmental characteristics of the organization as well as characteristics of the person exercising influence.

The question of how influence is exercised was examined in terms of strategic choices among alternative influence targets and methods of influence. Although it was clear that situational factors surrounding the influence attempt affected strategic choices made by principals, the factors principals took into consideration in selecting among different targets and methods of influence within a given decision-making situation remain to be clarified. Raven and Krugla nski (1 970) suggested that individuals may attempt to maximize the potential effectiveness of the influence attempt in making such choices. Evidence that principals were concerned with the effectiveness of their influence attempts was found in the study. When principals were asked to rate a number of criteria that might be used in choosing among methods of influence, they rated the potential effectiveness of the method as the most important consideration (Mowday, 1975). Rosenberg and Pearlin (1962) have also shown that the choice of a method of influence may be affected by organizational or professional norms governing influence processes, although principals rated this criterion as less important than effectiveness. Additional research is needed to examine the decision rules used by individuals in making strategic choices in the process of exercising influence.

Even though organizations may create conditions in which the exercise of influence becomes an integral part of the managerial role, it is apparent that managers may differ in their effectiveness in exercising influence. These differences may be the result of both variations in the amount of power possessed by managers and the manager's skill in exercising the power they have available to achieve specific goals. When effectiveness in exercising influence was examined in this study, it was found that effective principals were more likely to indicate they would use manipulation as a method of influence than principals rated less effective. Manipulation can be viewed as a technique that maximizes the influence agent's flexibility in exercising influence. When more direct methods of influence such as persuasion are used, the manager runs the risk of being refused early in the decision process and the only course of

1 53/ASQ



action remaining may involve potentially costly attempts to go over the head of the immediate decision maker to a higher authority. When covert methods of influence are used, however, the influence agent retains a higher degree of flexibility in future actions since his or her intentions are generally not known to the person being influenced (Gil- man, 1962; Newman, 1968). Furthermore, more covert methods of influence may also have the advantage of decreasing the tendency of influence targets to attribute self-serving motives to the influencer (Wortman and Lin- senmeier, 1977) and lessening the likelihood of evoking reactance on the part of the person being influenced (Brehm, 1966).

The finding that influence effectiveness was related to the likelihood of using manipulation and persuasion (in one decision situation) suggests the importance of information as a resource in exercising influence. Both manipulation and persuasion involve the transmission of information, although the way in which information is transmitted differs in each case. In a study of a computer acquisition decision, Pettigrew (1972, 1973) found the ability to filter the information provided to decision makers was an important determinant of the decision outcome. While his research demonstrated that the ability to control the content of information selectively is an important aspect of effectiveness in exercising influence, the results of the present study suggest the way in which information is transmitted is also an important strategic consideration. The generality of these findings needs to be examined in other organizational contexts. In both this study and Pettigrew's (1973), the characteristics of the organization were held relatively constant. It is likely, however, that characteristics of the overall organization (e.g., norms, climate, structure) may have an effect on the relative effectiveness of various methods of influence.

There is little doubt that additional research is needed to increase our understanding of the process through which power is exercised in organizations. Several areas for future investigation have already been identified. When the exercise of influence is viewed as a series of strategic choices faced by the influence agent, specific research questions are clarified. Important research questions also remain about the consequences of successfully or unsuccessfully exercising power in organizations. Future studies in these areas that are guided by theoretical models of the influence process and that incorporate multiple levels of analysis in the research design are likely to provide valuable insight into the processes through which influence is exercised in orga nizations.

1 54/ASQ




REFERENCES

Abell, Peter 1975 "Organizations as Bargaining

and Influence Systems: Measuring I ntra-orga nizational Power and Influence." In Peter Abell (ed.), Organiza- tions as Bargaining and Influ- ence Systems: 10-40. New York: Halsted.

Bacharach, Samuel B., and Michael Aiken 1976 "Structural and Process Con-

straints on Influence in Or- ganizations: A Level-Specific Analysis." Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 21: 623-642.

Bachman, Jerald G., Clagett G. Smith, and Jonathan A. Slesinger 1966 "Control, Performance, and

Satisfaction: An Analysis of Structural and Individual Ef- fects." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4: 127-1 36.

Birch, David, and Joseph Veroff 1966 Motivation: A Study of Ac-

tion, Belmont, CA: Brooks/ Cole.

Brehm, Jack W. 1966 A Theory of Psychological

Reactance, New York: Academic Press.

Cartwright, Dorwin 1959 "Power: A Neglected Variable

in Social Psychology." In Dorwin Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power: 1-14. Ann Arbor, Ml: Insti- tute for Social Research.

1965 "Influence, Leadership and Control." In James G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organiza- tions: 1-47. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Child, John 1973 "Strategies of Control and

Organizational Behavior." Administrative Science Quar- terly, 18: 1-17.

Cyert, Richard M., and James G. March 1963 A Behavioral Theory of the

Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dahl, Robert A. 1957 "The Concept of Power."

Behavioral Science, 2: 201 - 215.

Dalton, Melville 1959 Men Who Manage, New

York: Wiley.

Evans, Rowland, and Robert Novak 1966 Lyndon B. Johnson: The

Exercise of Power, New York: Signet Books.

Filley, A. C., and A. J. Grimes 1967 "The Bases of Power in De-

cision Processes." Proceed- ings of the 27th Annual Con- vention of the Academy of Management: 133-160.

French, John R. P., H. William Morrison, and George Levinger 1960 "Coercive Power and Forces

Affecting Conformity." Jour- nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61: 93-101.

French, John R. P., and Bertram Raven 1959 "The Bases of Social Power."

In Dorwin Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power: 150-167. Ann Arbor, Ml: In- stitute for Social Research.

Gamson, William A. 1968 Power and Discontent,

Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Gilman, Glenn 1962 "An Inquiry into the Nature

and Use of Authority." In Mason Haire (ed.), Organiza- tion Theory and Industrial Practice: 105-142. New York: Wiley.

Harsanyi, John C. 1962 "Measurement of Social

Power, Opportunity Costs, and the Theory of Two- Person Bargaining Games." Behavioral Science, 7: 67-80.

Hickson, D., C. Hinings, C. Lee, R. Schneck, and J. Pennings 1971 "A Strategic Contingencies

Theory of Intra-organizational Power." Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 16: 216-229.

Hinings, C., D. Hickson, J. Pen- nings, and R. Schneck 1974 "Structural Conditions of

Intra-organizational Power." Administrative Science Quar- terly, 19: 22-44.

Jackson, Douglas 1967 Personality Research Form

Manual, Goshen, NY: Re- search Psychologists Press.

Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977 Men and Women of the Cor-

poration, New York: Basic Books.

Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn 1966 The Social Psychology of Or-

ganizations, New York: Wiley.

Kipnis, David 1976 The Powerholders, Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Kipnis, David, and Joseph Cosentino 1969 "Use of Leadership Powers in

Industry." Journal of Applied Psychology, 53: 460-466.

Lasswell, Harold 1958 Politics: Who Gets What,

When, How, Cleveland, OH: Meridian Books.

Levinger, George 1959 "The Development of Percep-

tions and Behavior in Newly Formed Social Power Rela- tionships." In Dorwin Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power: 83-98. Ann Arbor, Ml: Institute for Social Research.

March, James G. 1962 "The Business Firm as a Polit-

ical Coalition." Journal of Poli- tics, 24: 662-678.

McClelland, David C., John W. Atkinson, Russell A. Clark, and Edgar L. Lowell 1953 The Achievement Motive,

New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts.

McClelland, David C., and Robert I. Watson, Jr. 1973 "Power Motivation and Risk

Taking Behavior." In David C. McClelland and Robert S. Steel (eds.), Human Motiva- tion: 164-180. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Mechanic, David 1962 "Sources of Power of Lower

Participants in Complex Or- ganizations." Administrative Science Quarterly, 7: 349- 364.

Michener, H. Andrew, and Martha R. Burt 1975 "Use of Social Influence

Under Varying Conditions of Legitimacy." Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychol- ogy, 32: 398-407.

Mowday, Richard T. 1975 An Exploratory Study of the

Exercise of Influence in Or- ganizations. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation, Graduate School of Administration, University of California, Irvine.

Nagel, Jack H. 1968 "Some Questions About the

Concept of Power." Behav- ioral Science, 13: 129-137.

Newman, William H. 1968 "Strategic Considerations in

Planning." In David R. Hampton, Charles E. Sum- mer, and Ross A. Webber (eds.), Organizational Behavior and the Practice of Manage- ment: 633-642. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.

1 55/ASQ



Patchen, Martin 1974 "The Locus and Basis of In-

fluence in Organizational De- cisions." Organizational Be- havior and Human Perform- ance, 11: 195-221.

Peiz, Donald C. 1952 "Influence: A Key to Effec-

tive Leadership in the First- line Supervisor." Personnel, 29: 3-11.

Pettigrew, Andrew M. 1972 "Information Control as a

Power Resource." Sociology, 6: 187-204.

1973 The Politics of Organizational Decision Making, London: Tavistock.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey 1977 "Power and Resource Alloca-

tion in Organizations." In Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik (eds.), New Direc- tions in Organizational Behav- ior: 235-265. Chicago: St. Clair.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey, Gerald R. Salan- cik, and Huseyin Leblebici 1976 "The Effect of Uncertainty on

the Use of Social Influence in Organizational Decision Mak- ing." Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 227-245.

Pollard, William E., and Terence R. Mitchell 1972 "Decision Theory Analysis of

Social Power." Psychological Bulletin, 78: 433-446.

Porter, Lyman W. 1976 Organizations as Political

Animals. Presidential address to the Division of Industrial- Organizational Psychology, 84th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Asso- ciation, Washington, D.C., September.

Raven, Bertram H., and Arie W. Kruglanski 1970 "Conflict and Power." In Paul

Swingle (ed.), The Structure of Conflict: 69-109. New York: Academic Press.

Rosenberg, Morris, and Leonard I. Pearlin 1962 "Power-orientations in the

Mental Hospital." Human Re- lations, 15: 335-349.

Salanick, Gerald R., and Jeffrey Pfeffer 1974 "The Bases and Use of

Power in Organizational Deci- sion Making: The Case of a University." Administrative Science Quarterly, 19: 453- 473.

1977 Who Gets Power -and How They Hold On To It: A Strategic-contingency Model of Power." Organizational Dynamics, 5: 3-21.

Schopler, John 1965 "Social Power." In L. Ber-

kowitz (ed.), Advances in Ex- perimental Psychology (Vol. 2): 177-218. New York: Academic Press.

Schopler, John, and Bruce D. Layton 1972 Attributions of Interpersonal

Power and Influence, Morris- town, NJ: General Learning Press.

Siegel, Sidney 1956 Nonparametric Statistics, New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Steers, Richard M. 1975 "Task-goal Attributes, N

Achievement, and Supervi- sory Performance." Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 392-403.

Steers, Richard M., and Daniel N. Braunstein 1976 "A Behaviorally-based Mea-

sure of Manifest Needs in a Work Setting." Journal of Vo- cational Behavior, 9: 251- 266.

Stogdill, Ralph M. 1974 Handbook of Leadership: A

Survey of Theory and Re- search, New York: Free Press.

Strauss, George 1962 "Tactics of Lateral Relation-

ships: The Purchasing Agent." Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 7: 161-186.

Tatsuoka, Maurice M. 1973 An Examination of the Statis-

tical Properties of a Mul- tivariate Measure of Strength of Relationship (Final Report), Urbana, IL: University of Il- linois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Educational Psychology, College of Educa- tion, December.

Tedeschi, James T., Barry R. Schlenker, and Svenn Linkskold 1972 "The Exercise of Power and

I nfluence: The Source of I n- fluence." In James T. Tedes- chi (ed.), The Social Influence Processes: 287-345. Chicago: Aldine.

Thompson, James D. 1967 Organizations in Action, New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Vroom, Victor H. 1964 Work and Motivation, New

York: Wiley.

Winter, David G. 1973 "The Need for Power." In

David C. McClelland and Robert S. Steele (eds.), Human Motivation: 279-286. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Wortman, Camille B., and Joan A. W. Linsenmeier 1977 "Interpersonal Attraction and

Techniques of Ingratiation in Organizational Settings." In Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik (eds.), New Direc- tions in Organizational Behav- ior: 133-1 78. Chicago: St. Clair.

Zipf, Sheila G. 1960 "Resistance and Conformity

Under Reward and Punish- ment." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61: 102-109.

1 56/ASQ



the exercise of upward influence in organizations

Documents