Leadership as a Function of Power PROPOSAL Management

Leadership As A
Function Of Power
Gary Yukl’s research on leadership provides us with insights into the
use of power and how its components can influence the behavior of
subordinates and peers.

By R. Dennis Green

H
ow can power be used to influence Yukl considered whether effective leaders
behavior? How many types of have more power or different sources of
power exist? Which are most likely power than ineffective leaders, and
to produce the compliance and commit- whether they exercise power in different
ment we seek from subordinates and peers? ways. His findings are particularly germane
These kinds of questions have been studied to proposal management professionals who
and discussed for centuries. A scholarly may correlate persuasion and influence as
analysis of recent research is offered by one and the same.
Gary A. Yukl, State University of New York
at Albany, in his several textbooks on lead- RESEARCH ON POWER AND
ership. Specifically, his textbook, EFFECTIVENESS
Leadership in Organizations, Second Yukl found that most research classified
Edition, published in 1989, reviewed the five different types of leader power, relying
research to date on power and how it influ- upon the power taxonomy proposed by
ences behavior and leadership effective- French and Raven in their Studies of
ness. Two of his tables on the subject and Social Power. Their classifications are listed
selected short excerpts are included here. in Table 1 on the following page.

54 APMP Fall 1999

PROPOSAL Management Leadership as a Function of Power

Table 1. Power Taxonomy

Type of Power Description

Reward power The target person complies in order to obtain rewards he or she believes
are controlled by the agent.

Coercive power The target person complies in order to avoid punishments he or she
believes are controlled by the agent.

Legitimate power The target person complies because he or she believes the agent has the
right to make the request and the target person has the obligation to comply.

Expert power The target person complies because he or she believes that the agent has
special knowledge about the best way to do something.

Referent power The target person complies because he or she admires or identifies with
the agent and wants to gain the agent’s approval.

Taxonomy from J. French & B.H. Raven, Studies of Social Power, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI (1959).

GUIDELINES FOR INFLUENCING activity is tedious, dangerous, or unpleasant. Legitimate

requests should be made in a clear, concise manner, using
SUBORDINATES
language that the target person can easily understand.
How do these types of power influence behavior and what
type of outcome does each produce? Yukl’s findings are Reward power is most commonly used by making an
summarized in Table 2. “By drawing upon a diverse litera- explicit or implicit promise to give a person something
under the leader’s control for carrying out a request or per-
ture in the social sciences that includes research on power,
forming a task. Compliance is most likely if the reward is
leader behavior, motivation, communication, counseling,
something valued by the target person. Recent research
supervision, and conflict resolution, it is possible to devel-
also suggests that effective managers provide sincere, public
op some tentative guidelines for leaders,” he writes. “These
recognition to subordinates in the form of awards, cere-
guidelines vary in degree of empirical support; some are monies and special symbols. Significant rewards accompany
fairly well supported, while others are mostly speculative. the recognition, but the focus is on the person’s contribu-
However, for managers faced with the immediate necessity tions and achievements, not on the reward. Used in this
of influencing others, the guidelines provide the best advice way, reward power can be a source of increased referent
possible… The guidelines are usually phrased in terms of power over time.
leader influence attempts with subordinates… but most of
Commitment is an even more desirable outcome because
the principles’ underlying guidelines apply equally well to
of the trust and emotional pledge that it engenders.
influence attempts with peers, and many apply to influence
Commitment is most likely when the powers used are expert
attempts with superiors.” and referential.
Clearly, as persuaders, we have an interest in gaining com- Expert power “is commonly exercised in the form of rational
pliance with our requests and objectives. Compliance is persuasion. The leader presents logical arguments and sup-
one of three potential outcomes. The two types of power porting evidence for a particular proposal, plan, or request.
most likely to produce compliance are reward power and Success depends on the leader’s credibility and persuasive
legitimate or position power, such as that attendant to communication skills in addition to technical knowledge
positions of manager or chief. and logical or analytical ability. Proposals or requests
should be made in a confident manner, and the leader
In the context of legitimate power, Yukl explains that
should avoid making contradictory statements or vacillat-
authority is exercised by making a legitimate request,
ing between inconsistent positions.”
either verbally or in written form. A polite request is more
effective than an arrogant demand. Compliance with the Expert power is based on a knowledge differential between
request is more likely if it is perceived to be within the the leader and the target person. Rational persuasion is
leader’s scope of authority. An illegitimate request is likely to most effective when the target person shares the leader’s
be ignored, or otherwise resisted, especially if the requested objectives.

APMP Fall 1999 55

 Leadership as a Function of Power PROPOSAL Management

Table 2. Sources of Leader Influence over Subordinates and Likely Outcomes

Source of Type of Outcome

Leader Influence Commitment Compliance Resistance

Reward Power Possible —if used in a LIKELY*— if used in a Possible —if used in a
subtle, very personal way mechanical, impersonal way manipulative, arrogant way

Coercive Power Very unlikely Possible — if used in a helpful, LIKELY*— if used in a hostile
non-punitive way or manipulative way

Legitimate Power Possible — if request is LIKELY*— if request or order is Possible —if arrogant demands are
(or “Position” Power) polite and very appropriate seen as legitimate made or request does not appear proper

Expert Power LIKELY*— if request is per- Possible —if request is persua- Possible —if leader is arrogant and
(or “Skill” Power) suasive and subordinates sive but subordinates are apa- insulting, or sub ordinates oppose task
share leader’s task goals thetic about task goals goals

Referent Power LIKELY*— if request is Possible —if request is perceived Possible —if request is for something
(or “Friendship”) believed to be important to be unimportant to leader that will bring harm to leader
to leader

*Indicates most common outcome.

“The most common way to exercise referent power is merely appeals (including ingratiation). The research finds that the
to ask the target person with whom one has a friendship to selection of influence tactics varies with the relative status of
do something… It is useful to indicate the importance of the target person and the purpose of the influence attempt.”
the request because a request that is important to the
“The success of an influence attempt depends greatly on
leader is more likely to result in subordinate commitment.”
the manner in which power is exercised. Effective leaders
Resistance is the most likely outcome when coercive power are likely to use power in a subtle, careful fashion that min-
is used by a leader. “It is best to avoid using coercion except imizes status differentials and avoids threats to the target
when absolutely necessary, because it is difficult to use and
person’s self esteem. In contrast, leaders who exercise power
it is likely to result in undesirable side effects such as anxiety
in an arrogant, manipulative, domineering manner are likely
and resentment. In work organizations, the most appropriate
to engender resistance.”
use of coercion is to deter behavior that is very detrimental
to the organization, such as illegal activities, theft, violation “The amount of position power necessary for leader effec-
of safety rules, reckless behavior that endangers others, and tiveness depends on the nature of the organization, task, and
direct disobedience of legitimate requests.” subordinates. A leader with extensive reward and coercive
power is tempted to rely on them excessively, instead of using
YUKL’S SUMMARY
referent and expert power. This path leads to resentment
“Research on the use of different forms of power by leaders
and rebellion. On the other hand, a leader lacking sufficient
suggests that effective leaders rely more on personal power
position power to reward competent subordinates, make
than on position power. Nevertheless, position power is still
necessary changes, and punish chronic troublemakers will
important, and it interacts in complex ways with personal
power to determine a leader’s influence on subordinates. find it difficult to develop a high-performing group.” APMP
The potential to use position power for influence attempts
with peers or superiors is much more limited, and here per- SOURCE: Leadership in Organizations, Second Edition, By
sonal power is clearly the predominant source of influence.” Gary A. Yukl, State University of New York at Albany. 1989,
1981 by Prentice Hall, Inc. (Reference pages 34-53.)
“Descriptive research on influence behavior usually deals Also see Yukl’s other books, including: Leadership in
with influence tactics such as rational persuasion, exchange Organizations, Fourth Edition (1998) and Skills for Managers
tactics, pressure tactics, legitimate requests, and personal and Leaders: Text, Cases and Exercises (1990).

56 APMP Fall 1999

Proposal Management is the professional journal of the Association of Proposal Management Professionals (APMP), an organization dedicated to advancing the arts, sciences and technology of proposal management and promoting the
professionalism of those so engaged. The material in this reprint is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of APMP. Though all journal articles are peer reviewed, APMP cannot warrant the
competencies of its contributing authors or the research, services and products they describe.