Situational influences on the use of power.

Abstract

Kind of subordinate problem encountered and number of subordinates supervised were varied in an experimental study of the use of supervisory power The 5s were university students appointed to oversee the production of simulated workers. It was found that problems of discipline evoked Ss' use of coercive powers, while problems of ineptness evoked 5s use of expert powers Variations in the number of subordinates supervised influenced the amount of attention 5s could give to any one worker This resulted in less time spent with poor workers and fewer pay raises given to satisfactory workers, when Ss were supervising large numbers of workers In addition, Ss with little confidence in their leadership ability relied mainly on formally proscribed powers to correct poor performance, while more confident Ss used both informal persuasion and formally proscribed powers. It was also found that the nature of the problem manifested by a problem worker influenced the frequency of pay raises given to satisfactory workers.

Understanding the relationship between span of control and subordinate consensus in leader–member exchange

“…Judge and Ferris (1993) similarly suggested that the larger the span of control the less actual manager-follower contact occurs. Still other researchers (e.g., Cogliser & Schriesheim, 2000;Goodstadt & Kipnis, 1970;Green et al, 1996) proposed or found support for this contention. Time effects, however, have not been any more consistent regarding LMX than have studies of span of control.…”

Supervisors and their response to poor performance: A study of disciplinary decision making

“…Our findings suggest that once a performance problem has been identified as a disciplinary issue, managerial decision processes often are not driven by a desire to "fit the punishment to the offense." Rather, decision makers appear to be influenced more by factors made important by norms relating to procedural fairness, to the accrual of rights through past contributions, and to the perceived need for authority (Goodstadt & Kipnis, 1970).…”

Employee Control and Discipline: Patterns and Priorities

“…They also found that penalties were more severe for persons of lower organizational rank and for persons described as marginal (as opposed to «exceptional») in their talents, given the same infraction. Other research has shown that the emotional state of the supervisor and the manner of the subordinate (hostile or uncooperative) moderate the intensity of the discipline applied (Goodstadt and Kipnis, 1970;Kipnis, Silverman and Copeland, 1973). Evidence from a study by Shaak and Schwartz (1973) indicated that managers at higher organizational levels recommended more severe penalties for a set of hypothetical offences than did managers at lower levels.…”