lOMoARcPSD|4940552

MMS714

Sports Economics (La Trobe University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Power and
Politics in
Organizational
Behaviour
MMS714 – Sports Organisational
Behaviour

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................2
Introduction...................................................................3
Different sources of power...........................................5
Analysis of People using power....................................8
Conflict and issues due to use of power.....................10
Motivation behind uses of power..............................12
Conclusion....................................................................14
Reference List..............................................................16

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Executive Summary

Introduction: The purpose of the report is to find a detailed analysis of the

challenges that are present in the case study of power and politics on GoSports
there are various characterless possessing power and have vivid
characteristics. The report helps to understand the use and motive behind the
power by various leaders of the organisation. It also sheds light on the various
power sources of the leaders.

Scope:
1. To determine core challenges in the case study
2. Understanding the culture of the organisation
3. Different power sources and effect on the organisation
4. Cause and management of conflict

Objective of Study: Organisations are made up of both human and resources.

It is this human resource that further adds value to the material resource.
Definitive decisions are to be made for converting the material resources and
these decisions are generally a basis of politics in an organisation which leads
to the powerplay between members. These choices have politics and power
dynamics involved as the person making use of the power wants his/her
choices and decision to be accepted. An understanding of the dynamics of
power and politics is also embedded in the culture of the organisation which
requires any analysis pf coalitions, power and bargaining. Thus, it can be said
that the organisation’s survival is a political act.

Limitations of Study:
1. Lack of substantial forecasting figures for supporting the subject.
2. Better understanding through real work environment simulation.

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Introduction
GoSports Inc is a national sports retailer, headquartered in Philadelphia, PA. It
was founded in 1973 with a single neighbourhood store and has grown to
become a Fortune 500 corporation with roughly over 300 stores established
across the 48 states in the USA. GoSport’s unique selling point is the ability to
provide the customer with any sports equipment under one roof. But with this
there was constant pressure for maintaining a lean operation and having the
lowest possible inventory. Over the past few years, GoSports has witnessed a
considerable decrease in profits and not to forget a rising tension in the work
environment and culture majorly due to friction in the upper management.
Edward Sutton was the founder of the company, his three children had
inherited GoSports after his demise. The oldest, Michael, and the youngest,
Jeannie were members of the board, whereas the middle sister, Sarah, was
director of finance. Most of the employees, especially a large segment in the
top-level management were from greater Philadelphia area had started as
seasonal employees during high school this was the trend preferred for human
resourcing. Staffing requirements for filling top positions was done internally
too
Over the years, GoSports had experienced a substantial decline in sales and
revenue. Substantial factors in this can be attributed to the shift toward online
shopping, which benefited companies with smaller operations and lack of
capitalising market opportunities. Further to complicate current matters there
as been a divide in the top-level management of the organization, repeated
disagreements over the years regarding the strategic direction of the company,
with varying coalitions attempting to steer GoSports in one direction or the
other. Due to the pertaining problems especially disagreements and personal
feuds have hampered decision making and thus, the majority of the board
members decided to put an end to the existing culture of internal recruitment
and hired James Park as their new CEO in hope of revalorization of the culture
and to see GoSports back to its glory days. While the stakeholders and lower
level employees appreciated the bold move there were many powerful
factions not happy about the hire.

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Soon after James Park took on the role of CEO, he realised that the decision of
herring him was not unanimous and many people in powerful positions were
vying his position. Feeling threatened with the new CEO and his credentials as
a successful sports entrepreneur and manager, resisted any idea of change and
were stern on their idea of strengthening their respective departments was the
only way to turn things around for GoSports, some even tried to manipulate
information trying to sabotage Park’s plans. James Park had to face the issues
of residing company culture and the power and politics related to it. His main
nemesis was Luc Livingston, who was the head of operations and had spent his
entire career at GoSports. He gave weightage to personal ambition over the
organization’s need and many other top executives were unhappy and
frustrated with him.
In his initial two weeks he met with all the employees and executives
collectively and personal noting the minute details and politics of the
organization. Not all the meetings were fruitful and many resisted giving away
any important information. James Park formulated a strategy which saw
involvement and support of top, middle and bottom level of the organization
to rejuvenate the work culture of the organization. James with his rich
knowledge and experience knew that was the only way to save the company.
Highly determined and with many in the GoSports taking him in their trust he
presents his ideas to the board members on the future of GoSports.
Pre-existing Culture of the Organization:
1. Most of the higher-level managers started have been with the company
since the start of their career as s season employee during high school.
2. Preference of similar personalities & interest at workplace and majority
of them belonging to the same place, Philadelphia.
3. Authority, hierarchy and favouritism were the ways in which the
organisation was ruled.
4. Constant disagreement at the top level over the strategic decisions and
battle for internal control of the organisation, leading to misdirection of
objectives and the company.
5. Inability to pounce on new market opportunities caused by the concerns
going on. (competitors seizing the opportunities as visible gaps in
GoSports structure)

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

6. Shareholder’s and employees are in favour of the new CEO park but
there are some top-level executives that are not happy about his hire.
7. Resistance of change by fellow departments head who strongly believe
in strengthening their own departments is the best way to revitalise the
organisation.

Different sources of power

Power can be defined as the ability and presence of motive to influence other
people. In broader aspect it refers to the scope to being able to affect the
behaviour of the subordinates or employees in a formal environment. Power is
visible and exerted both in formal and informal environments. It is an
exchange in a relationship that occurs in transactions between an agent and
the receipt of the attempted usage of power (Definition of power, n.d.). The
word “power” often evokes negative response in people working in an
organisational structure. As power be a scarce resource in an organisation,
either the member of the organisation will try to keep hold of their power or
try taking it from others (McClelland, 1975). However, it is not just a mere
ability to intimidate or take away certain set privileges. Careful and positive
use of power for attaining substantial organizational goals can work wonders in
a work environment. Social phycologists French and Raven (1959), imply in
their model that power majorly has five sources. In 1965, Raven further added
a sixth power source to the paradigm. Three sources of power arise due to a
person’s positional stature in an organization and the other three dues to an
individual’s personal qualities (‘French and Raven’s Five Forms of Power –
Understanding Where Power Comes from in the Workplace’, n.d.).
Bases of Power by French and Raven (1959)
Positional Power Sources Personal Power Sources
1. Legitimate power 1. Expert power
2. Reward power 2. Referent power
3. Coercive power 3. Informational power

Legitimate Power

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

This is the type of power that comes along with holding of a position.
Legitimate power comes along with the position and vanishes too when the
person vacates that position. It is not permanent. But this type of power can be
exercised by managers in situations where their virtue holds legitimacy. It
holds very close resemblance to the idea of legitimacy of authority, which has
been talked about for a long period of time by Weber, Henderson, & Parsons,
(1947). In formal organizations legitimate power is largely a relationship
between offices held by people in high positions rather than between
employees. A top-level executive holds the power to legitimately prescribe
behaviour sets for this staff and they in turn are gratified to accept these
norms. Many a times it is noted that age, sex, clan or cultural upbringing of the
manager determines the broad areas within which he may prescribe various
behaviours. (Raven & John R. P. French, 1958).
Reward Power
People in leadership positions are vested with the ability to reward people
with incentives which might be financial or emotional in nature depending
upon the motivation factor for the employee being rewarded. Pay rises,
compliments or more responsibilities are some commonly used techniques by
managers. Though this power is limited in nature and the outcome totally
depends on how it is perceived. Further, all leadership positions in an
organization do not have the same level of reward power in their possession
(Skinner & Stewart, 2017). Reward power often leads to better performances,
but studies also indicate that this has a diminishing effect in the long run at
perceiver’s end and constant rewarding also leads to stagnation. The
expectation of the rewards is also higher every time making it a financially
burden. Mabey (2001), also states that in modern day organizational
management also give some reward power to the employees over their
managers using 360-degree feedback mechanism. This type of power can be
easily noticed being used rigorously towards the players by managers,
stakeholders, sponsors to help stimuli the winning motivation but as discussed
above this doesn’t seem to work all the time as it depends on the kind of
motivators which are driving the athletes.
Coercive Power

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Coercive power is very direct and tricky but nonetheless utmost effective.
Many a times this type of power source is abused by managers and
unnecessary or extreme use will have a downward spiral effect on the work
environment. Punishment, sanction and handing over undesired work are
some types of coercive power. In sports organization which are heavily
depended on volunteers using more of coercive power to get things done will
lead to unwanted increase in employee turnover rate (Skinner & Stewart,
2017). Thus, mangers are advised to use this power cautiously and many
organizations also put clear definitive policies on staff treatment (Lunenburg,
n.d.).
Expert Power
This source of power arises out of the personal traits of a person. As the term
suggests an expert personality has the knowledge, skill and sound judgment
for people to believe and follow the leader. The head coach of a sports team
having expert knowledge will only posses’ expert power when the teammates
and his assisting coaching staff believe in his skill set and respect it. Without
that it will result in disobedience and bad behaviour (Leadership and Power:
Two Important Factors for Effective Coaching., n.d.). The person seeking
expert power should also be trustworthy above having exceptional skills in his/
her field. And the experts are deemed to have the expertise only in their field
of work or study not outside them (Luthans, 2011).
Referent Power
This power is the ability of a person or a manger to influence his follower’s
behaviour because they admire his charismatic personality and seem to
identify strongly with the manager. The power tailors itself out of admiration
and the desire to be like a person. Referent power comes with a great deal of
responsibility as a likeable person lacking integrity may abuse the power and
use for personal advantage. Research reflects that influential sports
personalities ranging from famous athletes to managers and commentators
hold immense amount of referent power in influencing people. Huge
corporates use this by endorsing these personalities. For e.g. – Michael Jordan
and Serena Williams have the power to influence people’s choice of active
sports shoes and tennis gear (International Marketing ResearchE-book, 2005).

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Informational Power
This source was added by Raven six year after the introduction of the base
model of social power. Raven emphasised that information can change
behaviour. It is the ability of an influencer to bring about change with the help
of useful information (Current studies in social psychology, 1965). Information
power arises out of a person or group holding vital information that others
require for their objectives. Just simply possessing critical information is not
vital enough, it is what the person plans to do or does with it. Comparing to
other personal sources of power this is a more transitory kind of power and it
is either transferred or diluted once a person passes on the information
(Feldman, 2014).

Analysis of People using power

Luc Livingston - He is the director of operations at GoSports, he initially joined

the company as a season employee back in his high school days. Luc visibly
uses coercive power over his employees and staff as he is known for being
short tempered. His is also seen using legitimate power to showcase his
importance and stature in the organization. He also is using informational
power in a negative way when he provided the new CEO Park with no
constructive information in their meeting. He does not want Park to benefit in
any way even if it leads to betterment of the organization.
Michael Sutton – He is the oldest son of the founder, Edward Sutton. After the
passing of his father, he inherited the position of chairman of the board. He did
not actively play a part in management of the company but enjoyed controlling
office politics. As people start noticing his minimal involvement in the
operations of the company, he uses more of legitimate power to show
everyone who is boss. He also wishes desperately to use his reward power in
promoting Luc Livingston to the CEO of the company. He also uses coercive
and informational power by not letting his younger sister and fellow board
member Jeannie speak her mind and avoiding passing of the informational
power to Park.
Robert Harkin – Robert Harkin is the director of marketing. He has been
working with the organization for about 20 years. He is thoroughly admired for

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

his creative genius by his subordinates and possess expert power. He also
possesses referent power as many employees consider him the most
approachable in the upper male echelon also Park noticed that Robert really
cared for the organization and the employees.
Sarah Sutton – Sarah joined GoSports recently after being appointed as the
head of Finance Department. She has abundance of relevant work experience
with numerous leading financial consultancy firms. Sarah is worried about her
father’s legacy as the problems at GoSports worsen. She uses her legitimate
power in the company by successfully convincing the board to hire someone
from outside as Grimm’s successor. She also has expert power due to her
previous accolades and she proved it again at GoSports by imposing tighter
budgets and increasing operation efficiency of the departments She also gives
Park vital information on the icy relationship between Michael and Harkin.
James Park – James Park is newly appointed CEO replacing H. Grimm. He
previously owned a successful sports and events management company, which
he later sold to his partner. He well networked in the sports industry to having
worked for an international sports enterprise for 17 years, making him an
expert in his field. He is known for his charming personality and charisma. He is
also possessing sound relation building ability and people are comfortable in
talking to Park making him a good communicator too. These factors enable
him to hold referent power.

Positions in GoSports and their sources of power

Name – Position Source of Power Motivation
Luc Livingston – Legitimate power To claim his role and
Director of Operations position in the
company.
Used this power source
Coercive power for getting things done
and for control.
Unwilling to share
Informational power information with Park
for revitalization
attempt. Instructing
staff for the same.

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Michael Sutton – Legitimate power To control office politics

Chairman of Board as no part otherwise
Promoting Michael to
Reward power CEO, Old boy group
having the control over
the company.
Controlling board
Coercive power members behaviour for
personal intensions.
Informational power Intends that Park fails in
his efforts
Robert Harkin – Head Expert power Very creative and puts
of Marketing Dept the organization first.
Referent power Always present for the
employees as he knows
the current state of the
organization.
Sarah Sutton – Head of Legitimate power Revitalization of the
Finance Dept company and wants to
break the current
culture in the company.
Expert power Able to accomplish
objectives for her
department.
James Park – CEO Expert power Expertise in the industry
wants to transform
GoSports to its past
success.
Referent power A relation builder

Conflict and issues due to use of power

1. The relationships between man and woman in any sports organization

and in managing sport have seldom been smooth and often have sided
with dominant male groups at the expense of many women and

10

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

marginalized men (Hargreaves, 1995). A similar situation has arisen in

the work dynamics of GoSports where power is stagnated with only a
mere group of three members of the organization. Also, a wide gap in
women in decision making position hampers the operations of the
company as women are activity playing a part in the organisation. Even
in the International Olympic Committee which has 133 members present
but only 15 midst those are positions are held by women. Whereas an
organization directly related to the Olympics should be a beacon for
social justice and equality especially at a workplace (Shaw & Slack,
2002).

2. Legitimate power is likely to bring in positive outcomes in the initial

stages but continued reliance on it like shown by Luc Livingston and
Michael Sutton creates a sense of discomfort and dissatisfaction in the
employees. This happens as in these cases there is no correlation of
legitimate power and expert power. The middle and lower level
employees have built a resistance towards getting involved in the power
struggle by these two. Sarah Sutton and Jeannie Sutton growing
extremely vary of centralized male dominant culture and find the
relationship between Luc and Michael the root cause for the problems
(Pfeffer, 1981).

3. Reward power has the frequency of influencing employee performance

behaviour in the short run. Michael wanted to reward Luc with the
position of CEO. His primary agenda was to strength the hold on the
control of the company by the long running old boy group consisting of
himself, Luc, Harkin and previously Grimm. This has created friction
between Harkin and Luc as the former putting the organizational needs
before anything and does not find Luc suitable for the role (Pfeffer,
1981).

4. Many a times it is visible that coercive power leads to compliance

temporarily by subordinates but over the period it drastically loses it
effectiveness and inflicts a negative effect on the working environment.
Due to male dominance in decision making and the upper level

11

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

management has left the female working staff dissatisfied and

frustrated. They do not trust the upper level male echelon (Seperich &
McCalley, 2005). Also, too much centralization of power has hampered
the creativity of the organization. They are also lagging in taking
advantage of new market opportunities.

5. Robert Harkin’s excising of expert power creates a state of conflict

between him and Luc Livingston as the former being threaten and
envious as expert power is related very closely to trust embed by fellow
employees. Luc sees himself as the alpha male of the organisation and
cannot see anyone else being of substantial influence.

Motivation behind uses of power

Power motivation has been defined as an interpersonal difference in the desire
to influence others (McClelland & Burnham, 2008). Individuals having high
priority on this source of motivation often have the will and determination to
strive for attaining the position that provides them with the desired power in
terms of authority and positional impact (Schuh et al., 2014). The ways in
which leaders of organizations utilize their power has significant ramifications
for many outcomes in organizations. Some of the
1. Motivation due to power dynamics and gender equality – Possessing
power, because of virtue of reputation, personal charisma or position
drives individuals to take actions that influences others (Galinsky,
Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003). This results in retention of power and
preventing empowerment of others. Power retention tends to be the
more likely outcome rather than power sharing unless the power holder
aims specifically to empower and grow others or unless the organization
conditions have the pre-existing culture (London, Bear, Cushenbery, &
Sherman, 2019). Moreover, power holders have a need for controlling
which in turn supersedes the need of others but also use power to
support accomplishments of fellow subordinates and employees.
(Maner & Case, 2016).

Like the situation in GoSports where Luc Livingston and Michael Sutton
try to concentrate power limited to their positions in the organization

12

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

rather than decentralising power to the lower and middle level

management. The effect was not only on the lower management levels,
top executives in the organization like fellow board members and
various heads of the department too found it hard to influence their
power in the work environment.

2. Goal orientation and leadership – Consider two, interpersonal

characteristics of leaders being: motivation, which further has two
dimensions, prestige and dominance (Maner & Case, 2016) and goal
orientated, which also has another two dimensions, called communal
and exchange (Fast, Sivanathan, Mayer, & Galinsky, 2012). Given that
power stimulates actions coherent with one’s goals and generally the
power behaviour should be influenced by the nature of these
interpersonal characteristics. The difference between exchange
orientation and communal orientation is that the former predisposes
power holders to lead in a personalized manner whereas, the later
prefers predisposing power holder to lead in a socialized manner.
Personalised power is characterized as self-aggrandizing, non-egalitarian
and exploitative. Socialized power is more likely to be characterised as
collectively oriented, egalitarian and non-exploitive (Howell, 1988).
Power holders having communal orientated (social) objectives are more
likely to act in a way to support his/ peers. Whereas, those people who
exhibit exchange goals are more likely to act in support of their own
interests, which means detriment of anyone who stands in their way.

Luc Livingston can be taken as a prime example of a leader who tends to

enforce exchange power for benefiting and attaining his own ambition
to become chairman of the board. Whereas, Robert Harkin (head of
Marketing) and the newly appointed CEO, James Park are ones which
reflect communal power.

3. Communal and exchange goal orientation – Chen, Lee-Chai, and Bargh

(2001), theorised the effects of power in terms of the objectives that
people associate with power, whether self-oriented goals – aligned with
an exchange orientation – or social responsibility goals aligned with a

13

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

communal orientation. People having high communal orientation have a

higher tendency to help others by taking their needs and feelings in
account while making decision which impacts the people in general.
They provide help/support to others when there is a sense of need and
do not expect others to reciprocate the favour (Clark & Mils, 1993).
People in position of power having exchange orientation in their power
motivation expect others to be repaid when they help others. Prestige
motivation increases power sharing for leaders who are high on
communal orientation and likely motivates individuals with exchange
orientation to act in ways that benefit others as well, even if to a lesser
extent than those with communal orientation. These leaders recognise
how support for their organization’s policies for gender equality can add
to their own prestige and that their team’s success contributes to their
own personal reputation. (London, Bear, Cushenbery, & Sherman, 2019).

4. Motivation caused due to prestige and dominance – Drawing on

Henrich and Gil- White’s (2001) evolutionary theory of status and
leadership, Maner and Mead (2010) outlined two strategies that
characterized how leaders attain and use power. Leaders who are more
inclined towards prestige motivation gain influence by gathering respect
and using their skillset and knowledge to help other people attain their
goals. There holds a similarity between prestige motivation and
communal orientation that both involve usage of power to benefit
others. Leaders who show high aptitude for dominance motivation
attain and use power through force, coercion and using resources for
personal benefit.

Conclusion
James Park being appointed as CEO along his wealth of experience and
accomplishments, at a time where there seems to be a power shift towards
executives of the organisation (Sarah Sutton, Robert Harkin & Jeannie Sutton)
who have the ambitions and survival of the organisational as their prime
motive. The organization is in desperate need of leadership who can
turnaround the current scenarios of centralised power with Luc Livingston &
Michael Sutton, the latter being a deserted leader in the work operation of
14

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

GoSports and only at the position due to family name that leads to Luc who is
the head of operations who is an active figure in the work environment of the
organization. Though the prime reasons for the current state of GoSports
points bluntly towards the leadership and management style Luc lacks. He
enforces a very autocrat style of leadership which can become unpleasant to
work in as it curbs freedom of work and speech at a workplace. (Sameer
Limbare, 2012) Decision making is highly centralised with no signs of group
dynamics and cohesion, which is highly needed in a dynamic industry like that
of sports retail where completion is vast, and opportunities limited whereas,
the newly appointed CEO is more developer type of leader which keeps the
interests and growth of others and the organization before anything. (Tetteh-
Opai & Omoregie, 2015)

Point of Differentiation James Park Luc Livingston

Position CEO Head of Operations
Work experience Wealth of experience in Has been in GoSports
international sports since the beginning of
industry with solid his career.
network
Social skills Great at relation Strong interpersonal
building skills
Personalities Extrovert Introvert
Multitasker Well organised
Dynamic Lacks creativity

James is also the most powerful person in the presented situation. And, is the
suitable kind of leader for revitalization of the stagnant culture of the
organization, the employees and top executives too take him in confidence. He
is a relation builder and developer asserting leader with being conscientious he
can formulate group cohesion and take a structured organization to its past
glory. Studies demonstrate a key relation between success in sports
organizations and group cohesion (Intoppa, n.d.). He is also the most powerful
due to his position of CEO and should try resolving conflict created by Luc and
Michael for the betterment of the organization. He can use Luc’s knowledge
and expertise as he has been working with the organisation from his early
school days, he knows the company inside out.

15

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Reference List

Clark, M. S., & Mils, J. (1993). The Difference between Communal and Exchange Relationships: What it is

and is Not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684–691.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196003

Definition of power. (n.d.). Retrieved 14 May 2019, from Ebrary website:

/2986/management/definition_power

Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident decision-

making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 249–260.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009

Feldman, R. S. (2014). Applications of Nonverbal Behavioral Theories and Research.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807140

French and Raven’s Five Forms of Power – Understanding Where Power Comes From in the Workplace.

(n.d.). Retrieved 15 May 2019, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_56.htm

French Jr., J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Studies in social power (pp. 150–167).

Oxford, England: Univer. Michigan.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP

PROCESSES From Power to Action.

16

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Hargreaves, J. (1995). Sporting females: critical issues in the history & sociology of women’s sports //

Review. Resources for Feminist Research, 24(1/2), 77–78.

Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In

The Jossey-Bass Management Series. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational

effectiveness (pp. 213–236). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

International Marketing ResearchE-book. (2005). Retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/8735244

Intoppa - A Comprehensive Study of Leadership Styles and Var.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://firescholars.seu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=honors

Intoppa, C. P. (n.d.). A Comprehensive Study of Leadership Styles and Various Factors Contributing to the

Success of Athletic Teams. 71.

Leadership and Power: Two Important Factors for Effective Coaching. (n.d.). 7.

London, M., Bear, J. B., Cushenbery, L., & Sherman, G. D. (2019). Leader support for gender equity:

Understanding prosocial goal orientation, leadership motivation, and power sharing. Human

Resource Management Review, 29(3), 418–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.08.002

Lunenburg, F. C. (n.d.). Power and Leadership: An Influence Process. 9.

Luthans, F. (2011). Organizational behavior: an evidence-based approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Mabey, C. (2001). Closing the circle: participant views of a 360 degree feedback programme. Human

Resource Management Journal, 11(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2001.tb00031.x

Maner, J. K., & Case, C. R. (2016). Chapter Three - Dominance and Prestige: Dual Strategies for Navigating

Social Hierarchies. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

(Vol. 54, pp. 129–180). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.02.001

17

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Maner, Jon K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: when leaders

sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3),

482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018559

McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. Oxford, England: Irvington.

McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (2008). Power Is the Great Motivator. Harvard Business Review Press.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. (1981). Power in Organizations. Pitman. (W’PONDS).

Raven, B. H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years

later. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7(2), 217–244.

Raven, B. H. (2008). The Bases of Power and the Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence:

Bases of Power. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8(1), 1–22.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2008.00159.x

Raven, B. H., & John R. P. French, Jr. (1958). Legitimate Power, Coercive Power, and Observability in Social

Influence. Sociometry, 21(2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785895

Sameer Limbare. (2012). Leadership Styles & Conflict Management Styles of Executives. Indian Journal of

Industrial Relations, 48(1), 172.

Schuh, S. C., Hernandez Bark, A. S., Van Quaquebeke, N., Hossiep, R., Frieg, P., & Van Dick, R. (2014).

Gender Differences in Leadership Role Occupancy: The Mediating Role of Power Motivation. Journal

of Business Ethics, 120(3), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1663-9

Scopus - Document details. (n.d.). Retrieved 20 May 2019, from

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84927874907&origin=inward

Seperich, G. J., & McCalley, R. W. (2005). Managing Power and People. Retrieved from

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/deakin/detail.action?docID=302468

Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2015). Classics of Organization Theory. Cengage Learning.

18

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4940552

Shaw, S., & Slack, T. (2002). ‘It’s been like that for Donkey’s Years’: The Construction of Gender Relations

and the Cultures of Sports Organizations. Culture, Sport, Society, 5(1), 86–106.

https://doi.org/10.1080/713999851

Skinner, J., & Stewart, author. ), Bob. (2017). Organizational behaviour in sport. Retrieved from

https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/247754963

Sports Psychology – Leadership and the role of a leader in sports. (2014, February 27). Retrieved 24 May

2019, from The UK’s leading Sports Psychology Website website:

https://believeperform.com/coaching/leadership-and-the-role-of-a-leader-in-sports/

Steiner, I., & Fishbein, M. (Series Ed.). (1965). Current studies in social psychology. Holt, Rinehart and

Winston: New York.

Tetteh-Opai, A. A., & Omoregie, P. O. (2015). Influence of Transactional Leadership Style on Administrative

Effectiveness in Sports Organisations in Ghana. IFE PsychologIA, 23(2), 64–70.

Weber, M., Henderson, A. M., & Parsons, T. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization,. New

York: Oxford University Press.

19

Downloaded by NuelClicks Photography (immanuelboahen@gmail.com)