This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire]

On: 14 February 2015, At: 09:16

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Basic and Applied Social

Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20

The Effects of
Transformational,
Transactional, and
Laissez Faire Leadership
Characteristics on
Subordinate Influencing
Behavior
Ronald J. Deluga
Published online: 07 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Ronald J. Deluga (1990) The Effects of Transformational,

Transactional, and Laissez Faire Leadership Characteristics on Subordinate
Influencing Behavior, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11:2, 191-203, DOI:
10.1207/s15324834basp1102_6

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1102_6

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
 proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015
 BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1990, 11(2), 191-203
Copyright 0 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

The Effects of Transformational,

Transactional, and Laissez Faire
Leadership Characteristics on
Subordinate Influencing Behavior
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

Ronald J . Deluga
Bryant College

The purpose of this study was to experimentally manipulate the relationship

of (a) four transformational leadership characteristics (charisma, inspiration,
intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration); (b) two transactional
leadership characteristics (contingent reward and management-byexception);
and (c) laissez faire leadership with soft, hard, and rational subordinate
influencing behavior. It was predicted that subordinates would most often
report using a soft (charisma and inspiration) and rational (individual
consideration and intellectual stimulation) approach with transformational
leaders, a hard approach with laissez faire leaders, and a rational (contingent
reward) as well as hard (management-by-exception) approach with transac-
tional leaders. Four hundred and fifty-one subjects of a graduate and evening
undergraduate business school randomly received a scenario depicting a male
or female leader exhibiting either one of the four transformational leadership
characteristics, one of the two transactional leadership characteristics or
laissez faire leadership. The results were generally supportive of the predic-
tions. The findings are discussed in terms of the emotional and metamorphic
effects of transformational leadership, the exchange nature of transactional
leadership, and the permissiveness of laissez faire leadership.

A complete comprehension of leadership necessitates a n understanding of

organizational power and influence processes (Burns, 1978). For instance,
by virtue of their hierarchical position, a leader has more designated
legitimated power than subordinates (Biggart & Hamilton, 1984; Pfeffer,
- --

Requests for reprints should be sent to Ronald J. Deluga, Department of Social Sciences,
Bryant College, Smithfield, RI 02917-1284.
 1981). However, leaders do not operate in a vacuum. They function in a
dynamic power system where the leader is both a user and a recipient of
organizational power and influence (Yukl, 1989). In this regard, it seems
reasonable that leadership style and subordinate influencing activity might
vary as a function of relative power. Thus, in this study, the dialectical
influence and power mechanisms of soft, hard, and rational subordinate
influence approaches as a function of three leadership styles: laissez faire,
transactional, and transformational leadership are of interest.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

LEADERSHIP STYLES

Laissez Faire Leadership

Laissez faire leadership describes passive leaders who are reluctant to

influence subordinates or give direction. They generally refrain from
participating in group or individual decision making (Bass, 1981; Bradford
& Lippitt, 1945) and to a large extent, abdicate their leadership role (Stoner,
1982). Subordinates are given considerable freedom of action and, there-
fore, seem likely to maximize their power and influence.

Transactional Leadership

Grounded in social learning (Bandura, 1977) and social exchange theory

(Hollander, 1979), transactional leadership theory recognizes the reciprocal
deterministic nature of leadership (Bass, 1981, 1985a; Burns, 1978; Hol-
lander, 1978; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Leaders and subordinates are viewed
as bargaining agents where relative power regulates an exchange process as
benefits are issued and received.
Bass (1981, 1985a) suggested that two characteristics constitute transac-
tional leadership. First, contingent reward describes the familiar work for
pay influencing arrangement where there is an explicit and/or implicit
agreement on the goals to be reached in order to obtain the desired rewards.
Second, management-by-exception characterizes how leaders monitor neg-
ative subordinate deviations and exert corrective action only when subor-
dinates fail to meet objectives.
Transactional leadership theory suggests that subordinates and/or
leaders can exercise considerable power and influence by engaging in a
mutually beneficial exchange process with their leader. For example, a
leader's control over vital information (Pettigrew, 1972) or a subordinate's
special skill in solving crucial organizational problems (Mechanic, 1%2),
provides each participant leverage from which to negotiate.
 Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership theory also acknowledges the importance of

power and influence processes. The leader-subordinate relationship is
viewed as one of intense emotion where subordinates place a great deal of
trust and confidence in the leader (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987;
Burns, 1978). Bass (1985a) cited charisma, inspiration, individual consid-
eration, and intellectual stimulation as four characteristics comprising
transformational leadership.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

Charisma is the leader's perceived God-like qualities that generates great

referent power and influence (Bass, 1985a). Subordinates idealize the
leader, develop a strong need for leader approval, and suppress criticism
(Downton, 1973). Inspiration is the ability to engage and emotionally
communicate a future idealistic state. The leader radiates power and
influences subordinates through visionary means (Bass, 1985a). Individual
consideration describes how the leader derives power by both serving as a
mentor and by employing a developmental orientation with subordinates
(Bass, 1985a). Finally, intellectual stimulation encourages subordinates to
think of old problems in new ways, to question their own values and beliefs,
and when appropriate, those of their leader (Bass et al., 1987).
Transformational leadership theory implies that the leader may optimize
his or her power and influence primarily through referent power (charisma)
and visionary processes (inspiration). Subordinates seem less likely to
influence a leader who is perceived as an idealized symbol. The role-
modeling aspect of individual consideration and the cognitive motivation
triggered by intellectual stimulation may also moderate influencing.

SUBORDINATE INFLUENCING APPROACHES

Kipnis and Schmidt (1985) classified subordinate influencing activity into

soft, hard, and rational approaches. A soft approach involves the use of
friendliness and flattery. It is used when the influencer (subordinate) has
little power, expects resistance, and is at a disadvantage relative to the target
(leader).
A rational approach involves the use of a logical argument and negotia-
tion to influence the leader. Subordinates use a rational approach in
situations where resistance is not expected and neither the subordinate nor
the leader holds a decisive power edge.
Finally, a hard influence approach includes the making of demands, the
expression of emotion, and the use of assertiveness. These tactics are
normally employed when the subordinate maintains a strong power posi-
tion, expects resistance, and holds the advantage over the leader.
 194 DELUGA

HYPOTHESES

In summary, laissez faire, transactional, and transformational leadership

are, respectively, seen as illustrating an increasing magnitude of leader
power. Similarly, soft, rational, and hard subordinate approaches to
influencing their leaders are, respectively, likewise viewed as depicting
increasing levels of subordinate power. It seems reasonable then, to propose
that subordinate use of influencing approaches would vary as a function of
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

a leader's power position. For example, with less powerful leaders, subor-
dinates could employ the more forceful hard influence strategies and have
minimal concern for leader retribution. Thus, it was predicted that:

Hypothesis 1: Subordinates will most often report using a soft

approach to influence transformational leaders.

Hypothesis 2: Subordinates will most often report using a rational

approach to influence transactional leaders.

Hypothesis 3: Subordinates will most often report using a hard

approach to influence laissez faire leaders.

When the various components of transactional leadership are considered,

further predictions about subordinate influencing can be made. Because
contingent reward and the rational influence approach both fundamentally
involve the exchange process, it was predicted that:

Hypothesis 4: The contingent reward component of transactional

leadership will be most closely associated with re-
ported subordinate use of a rational influence ap-
proach.

Similarly, the transactional leadership component of management-

by-exception describes how the leader exerts corrective action as subordi-
nates deviate from objectives. Because these subordinates would most likely
be in a disadvantageous power position, it was predicted that:

Hypothesis 5: The management-by-exception component of trans-

actional leadership will be most closely associated
with reported subordinate use of a soft influencing
approach.

Finally, when the various components of transformational leadership are

considered, further predictions can still be made. Because the individual
 SUBORDINATE INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR 195

consideration and intellectual stimulation components are viewed as per-

mitting some subordinate influencing whereas the charisma and inspira-
tional components are seen as curtailing subordinate influencing, it was
predicted that:

Hypothesis 6: The individual consideration and intellectual stimula-

tion components of transformational leadership will
be most closely associated with reported subordinate
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

use of a rational influencing approach.

Hypothesis 7: The charisma and inspiration components of trans-

formational leadership will be most closely associated
with reported subordinate use of a soft influencing
approach.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were a sample of 228 men and 223 women enrolled in graduate and
evening undergraduate courses at a business school located in the northeast.
Subjects were self-described as 34.2% upper-level/professional employees,
39.5% as middle or entry-level professionals, 10.3% as laborers, and 16%
were identified as "other" including full-time students. The average subject
age was 29.61 years.

Scenario Development

For each of the seven leadership characteristics under investigation, a

one-page scenario was written depicting a male or female leader who
portrayed that characteristic. Male and female versions of each character
were included to control for leader gender effects. All 14 scenarios
described identical work situations where the leader was a senior systems
analyst in a data processing consulting firm.'
The scenarios were developed as follows. The Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire-Form 5 (MLQ-5), developed by Bass (1985a, 1985b), mea-
sures charisma (10 items), inspiration (7 items), intellectual stimulation (10
items), and individual consideration (10 items) as the four characteristics
associated with transformational leadership. Similarly, the MLQ-5 mea-
sures contingent reward (10 items) and management-by-exception (10 items)

'Scenarios used in this study are available from Ronald J. Deluga.

 as the two characteristics associated with transactional leadership as well as
10 items measuring laissez faire leadership. These items were used to
construct the scenarios depicting a given leadership characteristic. Earlier
work by Bass (1981), Burns (1978), and Tichy and Devanna (1986) were also
used to further attempt to insure scenario construct validity. Sample
phrases include: "subordinates have complete faith in her" (charisma),
"arouses in subordinates the effort to work harder and better" (inspiration),
"treats each subordinate as an individual" (individual consideration),
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

"stresses the use of intelligence to overcome obstacles" (intellectual stimu-

lation), "arranges that subordinatesget what they want in exchange for their
efforts" (contingent reward), "takes action if objectives are not met"
(management-by-exception), and "avoids making decisions" (laissez faire).
Thus, the 14 male-female scenarios exemplified the seven independent
variables manipulated in my study.
Procedure
During class time, volunteer subjects randomly received one of 14 scenar-
ios. Subjects were directed in Part 1 to carefully read the scenario and
confidentially complete manipulation and realism checks as well as demo-
graphic items. Each of the scenarios also included 10 questions (7 for the
inspiration scenarios) specifically targeted at the scenario just read. Subjects
judged on a 5-point Likert type s d e ranging from frequently, if not always
(5) to not at all (1). The leader in the scenario displayed the behavior
described by the item. The purpose of these questions was to insure subject
involvement and essentially required a re-reading of the scenario.
In Part 2, subjects were instructed to view themselves as subordinates and
assume agreement with the description of their scenario leader. Subjects
then indicated how they would attempt to influence their leader as described
in the scenario by confidentially completing the Profile of Organizational
Influence Strategies-Form M (POIS-M; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1982).
The 27-item behavioral based POIS-M uses a 5-point Likert type format
ranging from almost always (5) to never (1). The items measure how
frequently a subordinate reports using each of six behavioral strategies
directed as a first attempt and, when encountering resistance, as a second
attempt toward influencing their leader. The six strategies can be classified
into three general influence approaches: soft, hard, and rational (Kipnis &
Schmidt, 1985). In answering these items, subjects were instructed to refer
back to the scenario. The strategies assessed during first and second
influence attempts by the POIS-M include:
Soft Approach
1. Friendliness (6 items) involves the use of ingratiation. A sample item
is, "I act very humble and polite while making my request."
 SUBORDINATE INnUENCING BEHAVIOR 197

Hard Approach

2. Assertiveness (6 items) includes the use of a direct and forceful

strategy. A sample item is, "I repeatedly remind my manager of what
I want."
3. Higher Authority (4 items) involves the gaining of support of higher
organizational levels. A sample item is, "I obtain the informal support
of higher management to back me up."
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

4. Coalition (2 items) includes the mobilization of other people in the

organization. A sample item is, "I obtain the support and cooperation
of my subordinates to back up my requests."

Rational Approach;

5. Bargaining (5 items) involves the use of negotiation through the

exchange of benefits or favors. A sample item is, "I offer to help with
my manager's work if he or she will do what I want."
6. Reason (4 items) includes the use of facts and data to support the
development of a logical argument. A sample item is, "I very carefully
explain to my manager the reasons for my request."

The POIS-M internal reliability estimates (alpha coefficient) for this study
ranged from .69 to .79.2

DATA ANALYSIS

Manipulation Check

Subjects responded to an item asking whether the leader described in the

scenario was either predominately charismatic, inspirational, showed intel-
lectual stimulation, individual consideration, used contingent reward, man-
agement-by-exception, or was perceived as a laissez faire leader. To assess
the degree of successful manipulation, a chi-square analysis was conducted.
The analysis was significant at &36, N = 530) = 1,629.94, p < .001.

Realism Check

A 5-point Likert type item was also included to assess the degree to which
subjects viewed the scenarios as realistic (i.e., representing actual leadership
behavior encountered in the workplace). Choices ranged from very realistic

r he complete descriptive data for the POIS-M are available from Ronald J . Deluga.
 (1) to not at all realistic ( 5 ) . The average score for the realism item was 2.08
(R = 3.00-1.64) slightly above the scale's 2.00 midpoint. This suggests that
subjects viewed the scenarios as at least moderately realistic.

Leader Gender Effects Check

Tukey's multiple comparison test was used to determine the extent to which
subjects responded differently to the male-female scenario versions for
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

each of the seven characteristics examined. All male-female pairwise

comparisons for each factor revealed no significant differences @ > .05).
It was concluded that subjects did not vary their influencing approach as a
function of the depicted leader's sex. Thus, all subsequent analyses were
conducted with the male-female versions for each characteristic combined
to represent each of the seven manipulations.

Leadership and Subordinate Influencing

Relationships Tests

First, a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to test the

relationship between the seven leadership characteristics depicted by the
scenarios and the soft, hard, and rational subordinate influence approaches
as measured by the POIS-M during first and second influence attempts.
Wilks's Criterion was significant at F(36, 1,930.54) = 2.23, p < .0001.
Duncan's New Multiple Range Test was used to further analyze the
leadership factors-subordinate influencing approach relationship. The
MANOVA and the rank ordered Duncan's Test results are shown in
Table 1.
A review of Table 1 suggests that the transactional leadership contingent
reward and management-by-exception characteristics were, respectively,
most closely associated with subordinate use of rational and soft influence
approaches during both first and second influence attempts. As such,
Hypotheses 4 and 5 appear supported.
Similarly, the transformational leadership characteristic intellectual stim-
ulation was, relative to the soft and hard influence approaches, most closely
associated with the rational influence approach during both first and second
influence attempts. On the other hand, individual consideration was not
found to be associated with a rational influence approach during either first
or second influence attempts. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was only modestly
supported.
Finally, it was predicted that the transformational leadership charisma
and inspiration characteristics would be most closely associated with
subordinate use of a soft influence approach (Hypothesis 7). Table 1
suggests that the prediction was moderately supported as the two charac-
 SUBORDINATE INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR 199

TABLE 1
MANOVA and Rank Order of Duncan's Test Results for Subordinate
Influencing Approach as a Function of Leadership Characteristics
---- -
-

Soft M Hard M Rational M

First Influencing Attempt
Management-By- Laissez Faire 28.29' Contingent
Exceptione 18.94 Reward 28.24'
Contingent Managernent-By- Intellectual
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

~eward~ 18.83 Exception 26.11' Stimulation 27.00

Inspirationa 18.44 Contingent 27.71" Charisma 26.55
Reward
18.42 Intellectual 25.22" Laissez Faire 26.32
Stimulation
Intellectual 17.90 Inspiration 25.200 Management-By 26.08"
Stimulationd Exception
Laissez Faire' 17.47 Charisma 24.800 Inspiration 25.290
Individual 17.46 Individual 23.07h Individual 25.28"
Considerationc Consideration Consideration

Second Influencing Attempt

Management-By- 19.1 1 Laissez Faire 32.57' Contingent
Exception Reward 28.88'
Inspiration 18.86 Contingent- 31.54' Laissez Faire 27.98
Reward
Contingent 18.66 Management-By- 29.478 Intellectual 27.78
Reward Exception Stimulation
Charisma 18.49 Inspiration 29. 17" Management-By 27.55"
Exception
Individual 18.44 Intellectual 28.47h Inspiration 27.3g8
Consideration Stimulation
Intellectual 18.17 Charismas 27.134~ Charisma 27.290
Stimulation
Laissez Faire 18.07 Individual Individual 26.65"
Consideration 26.80h Consideration
Note. F(36, 1,930.54) = 223, p < .0001. 'is significantly different from and in the same
'
column at p < .05. is significantly different from in same column at p < .05.
a N = 66. bN = 59. 'N = 69. d~ = 60. 'N = 62.

teristics were, relative to the hard and rational approaches, generally most
closely associated with subordinate use of a soft influence approach during
both first and second influence attempts.
A second analysis was performed whereby the charisma, inspiration,
intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration characteristics were
combined into a global transformational leadership variable. Similarly, the
contingent reward and management-by-exception characteristics were com-
bined into a global transactional leadership variable. The interest in this
analysis was to assess the relationship of a subordinate's influencing
 200 DELUGA

approach as a function of laissez faire, global transactional, and global

transformational leadership.
The three leadership variables were then entered into a MANOVA with
the soft, hard, and rational subordinate influencing approaches during first
and second influence attempts once again serving as the dependent vari-
ables. Wilks's criterion yielded a significant overall effect for leadership
style, F(12, 886) = 3.30, p < .0001. The MANOVA and the rank ordered
Duncan's Test results are also shown in Table 2. The analysis revealed that
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

both transactional and laissez faire leadership were, respectively, most

likely to be associated with rational and hard subordinate influencing
approaches (Hypotheses 2 and 3). Finally, as compared to the hard and
rational approaches, subordinates seemed most likely to use a soft approach
with transformational leaders (Hypothesis 1).

DISCUSSION

Before discussing the results, the study's methodological limitations (i.e.,

the use of scenarios) need to be addressed. First, reactions to leaders,
TABLE 2
MANOVA and Rank Order Duncan's Test Results for Subordinate Influencing
Approach as a Function of Global Leadership Style

Soft M Hard M Rational M

First Influencing Attempt
Global Global
Transactional Laissez Faire Transactional
Leadershipa 18.8gd Leadership 28.2!# Leadership 27.10
Global Global
Transformational Transactional Laissez Faire
~eadership~ 18.06 Leadership 25.92' Leadership 26.32
Global Global
Laissez Faire Transformational Transformational
LeadershipC 17.4T Leadership 24.51 Leadership 26.00

Second Influencing Attempt

Global Global
Transactional Laissez Faire Transactional
Leadership 18.90 Leadership 32.57d Leadership 28.65
Global Global
Transfomatinal Transactional Laissez Faire
Leadership 18.50 Leadership 30.45d Leadership 27.98
Global Global
Laissez Faire Transformational Transformational
Leadership 18.07 Leadership 27.99" Leadership 27.26
Note. F (12, 886) = 3.30, p < .0001. 'is significantly different from in the same column
at p < .05.
*N = 125. bN = 264. 'N = 62.
 SUBORDINATE INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR 201

particularly in terms of influence tactics, may not be fully captured in the

hypothetical situation of a scenario. The subjects are not actual subordi-
nates in ongoing, real situations. Thus, external validity can only be
inconclusive. Second, the leadership styles depicted are pure, as opposed to
most leaders who most likely use a combination of styles in actual practice.
Third, the scenarios describe only one element of time. Leader behavior and
subordinate influencing activity seem to fluctuate over time (Butterfield &
Bartol, 1977).
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

The manifest methodological limitations of this study are noted. As a

consequence, the following discussion is viewed as suggestive requiring
future verification using alternative methodology.
The results appear generally supportive of the study's predictions. First,
subordinates reported using a hard influence approach (higher authority,
assertiveness, and coalition) with laissez faire leaders. Laissez faire leaders
are viewed as reluctant to use their influence, thereby permitting subordi-
nates to operate as they wish (Bass, 1981; Bradford & Lippitt, 1945). As a
consequence, the apparent forceful subordinate influencing behavior in my
study may be symptomatic of the absence of counter-influence commonly
associated with laissez faire leaders. Subordinates are then able to maximize
their influence with little regard for laissez faire leader opposition.
Second, subordinates reported using a rational (bargaining and reason)
approach with transactional leadership, particularly with the contingent
reward characteristic and a soft (friendlineess) influencing approach with
the management-by-exception characteristic. With regard to contingent
reward, the findings are consistent with the social exchange views of
leadership (Hollander, 1979). Through a checks and balances mechanism,
leaders may conduct transactions using contingent reward whereas subor-
dinates may have bargaining and/or reason to obtain organizational
objectives and personal goals.
Similarly, the management-by-exception results appear to support the
study's prediction. As subordinates deviate from leader expectations, they
recognize their weak power position. As a consequence, they employ a
congenial, soft influence approach designed to recreate a favorable impres-
sion.
Third, subordinates are likely to use a soft approach to influence trans-
formational leaders. The transformational leader, particularly as exempli-
fied by the charisma and inspiration characteristics, has great referent power
(Bass, 1985a) and arouses in subordinates a psychological willingness to
obey, a reluctance to criticize, and may ignore subordinate attitudes toward
him or her (Gerth & Mills, 1946; Weber, 1946). Accordingly, the data here
may be indicative of subordinates' hesitation to influence a leadership figure
who is both held in high esteem and greatly admired. Subordinates may resort
to a friendly and a nonthreatening soft approach when attempting to in-
fluence a leader whose ongoing approval is highly valued.
 202 DELUGA

The intellectual stimulation characteristic of transformational leadership

was found to be closely associated with subordinate use of a rational
influence approach. The characteristic describes how transformational
leaders elevate problem awareness and encourage subordinates to solve
problems by themselves (Bass, 1985a). Because the characteristic appears to
use the cognitive abilities of subordinates, it does not seem surprising that
subordinates respond by using an approach characterized by the use of facts
and analytical arguments to support requests.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

Contrary to prediction, individual consideration was not found to be

associated with rational subordinate influencing. In fact, individual consid-
eration was the characteristic least likely associated with any of the
measured subordinate influencing approaches. Two post hoc interpreta-
tions of these data might offer explanation. First, out of a sense of loyalty,
subordinate protegh may be reluctant to influence a leader who has served
as a mentor and has cared enough to extend a helping hand. At the same
time, perhaps subordinates are not compelled to influence a leader who has
already expressed a responsiveness to personal concerns and needs. Further
research is needed to clarify these findings.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Two implications seem apparent. First, the hard approach to subordinate

influencing, as it functions with laissez faire leadership, may create an
uncomfortable organizational atmosphere characterized by subordinate
in-fighting. Subordinates may compete for the power and influence abdi-
cated by the laissez faire leader. As such, the next research step might
explore how subordinates influence each other in response to the laissez
faire leader.
A second implication involves the soft subordinate influencing behavior
associated with transformational leadership. The ingratiating aspects of this
approach could serve to inflate the transformational leader's self-image and
trigger denigrating perceptual stereotypes of subordinates. These and other
debilitating metamorphic effects of unchecked power have been elaborated
on elsewhere (Kipnis, 1976). In this regard, however, it seems feasible that
the counter-influencing rational approach associated with transactional
leadership is necessary to maintain long term organizational stability.
Future research might systematically use alternative methodologies to
explore how leader-subordinate influencing systems fluctuate in response to
changing internal and external conditions. It also seems valuable to employ
observational techniques to investigate how these dynamics operate in
situations where subordinates interact (i.e., make influence attempts) with
actual leaders.
 SUBORDINATE INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR 203

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New
York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership andperformance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985b). Multifoctor leademhip questionnaire (Form 5). Bingharnton, NY: State
University of New York University Center.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership
and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12, 73-87.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 09:16 14 February 2015

Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. G. (1984). The power of obedience. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 29, 540-549.
Bradford, L. P., & Lippitt, R. (1945). Building a democratic work group. Personnel, 22,
142-148.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper.
Butterfield, D. A., & Bartol, K. M. (1977). Evaluators of leader behavior: A missing element
in leadership theory. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp.
167-188). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership. New York: Free Press.
Gerth, H., & Mills, C. W. (Eds.). (1946). From M u Weber: Essays in sociology. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships.
New York: Free Press.
Hollander, E. P. (1979). Leadership and social exchange processes. In K. Gergen, M. S.
Greenberg, & R. H. W i s (Eds.), Group processes (pp. 103-1 18). New York: Winston-
Wiley.
Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1985, April). The language of persuasion. Psychology Today,
pp. 40, 42, 44-46.
Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1982). Profles of organizational influence strategies (Form M).
San Diego: University Associates.
Mechanic, D. (1%2). Sources of power in lower participants in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 7. 349-364.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1972). Information control as a power resource. Sociology, 6, 187-204.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Stoner, J. A. (1982). Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley.
Weber, M. (1946). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York: The Free
Press.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.