Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: fact or fiction?

One assumption shared by many contemporary models of leadership is that situational variables moderate the relationships between leader behaviors and subordinate responses. Recently, however, R. J. House and J. L. Baetz (1979 in B. Staw & L. Cummings, Eds., Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 1), Greenwich, Connecticut, JAI Press) have suggested that the effects of some leader traits and behaviors may be relatively invariant; that is, have the same effects in a variety of situations. One possible class of leader behaviors which may have relatively consistent effects across situations are those known as leader reward and punishment behaviors. The first goal of the research reported here was to increase our understanding of the relationships between leader contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors and subordinate responses. Contingent reward behavior was found to have the most pronounced relationships with subordinate performance and satisfaction, followed by noncontingent punishment behavior. Neither leader noncontingent reward nor contingent punishment behavior were found to be related to either subordinate performance or satisfaction, with the exception that noncontingent reward behavior was negatively related to subordinates' satisfaction with work. The second goal of the research was to examine the effects of a variety of potential moderators on the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and subordinate responses. The results of this study suggest that the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and subordinates' performance are relatively free of moderating effects.     

Reward behavior by male and female leaders: A causal inference analysis

This research investigated causal inferences between leader reward behavior (positive and punitive) and subordinate goal attainment, absenteeism, and work satisfaction over a 3-month period in a merchandise distribution center (n = 252). Four groups were studied: (a) male supervisors-male subordinates, (b) male supervisors-female subordinates, (c) female supervisors-female subordinates, and (d) female supervisors-male subordinates. Using the techniques of tests of mean differences and corrected cross-lag correlations, the results revealed that: (a) No significant differences attributed to sex were found between the four groups with the perceptions of leader reward behavior or subordinate outcome measures, and (b) the causal inference analysis suggested that the relationships between leader reward behavior and subordinate attitudes and behavior were independent of the effects of sex of supervisor or subordinate. Implications for research on sex stereotypes and leadership were discussed.     

Leader Attributions for Subordinate Performance: Consequences for Subsequent Leader Interactive Behaviors and Ratings1

An important application of attribution theory deals with leader explanations for subordinate performance and their effects on future leader–member interactions and performance. In the present study, subjects worked on a 2-trial task in which there was a leader and 2 members. Leaders received performance feedback and an attributional explanation for subordinate performance after Trial 1, and subsequent Trial 2 behavior was videotaped. Results showed that attributions significantly affected the amount of time spent by the leader talking to the group during the second trial, as well as the number of negative leader comments. Level of performance was a significant determinant of subordinate ratings and reward/punishment recommendations. Attributions differentially affected the punishment advocated by leaders, with failure due to internal causes more likely to be punished than failure due to external causes. Implications for an attributional theory of leadership are discussed.     

Power and social context in superior-subordinate interaction

Power differences are thought to interfere with superiors' interaction with subordinates. However, it is also argued that superiors with considerable power are most supportive of their subordinates. To explore these opposing positions, 90 undergraduates became managers with either high or low power who believed their goals were cooperatively, individualistically, or competitively related to their subordinate. Results support the hypothesis that social context affects how superiors use their power to interact with subordinates. High- and low-power superiors in cooperation had positive expectations, interacted constructively, restated the task, responded to requests for assistance, and developed a positive relationship compared to high- and low-power superiors in individualistic and competitive situations. In addition, only the high-power superiors in cooperation used their expertise to give direct aid to the subordinate. Results indicate that in cooperation superiors are likely to use their power constructively; however, in competitive and individualistic contexts, superiors are apt to fail to use their resources to facilitate subordinate performance. Results were also interpreted as suggesting that it is not so much the extent of superiors' power but the social context that affects their use of power and interaction with subordinates.     

THE EFFECTS OF ATTRIBUTION AND SOCIAL CONTEXT ON SUPERIORS' INFLUENCE AND INTERACTION WITH LOW PERFORMING SUBORDINATES

Organizations need to create the conditions in which superiors use their power effectively and appropriately, perhaps especially when subordinates are performing inadequately. Ninety undergraduates became managers who interacted with a low performing worker who demonstrated either insufficient ability or motivation. The managers also believed that their goals were cooperatively, individualistically, or competitively linked to the subordinate. Results identify situational variables that moderate superiors' influence. Generally, the social context affected the orientation to the subordinate in that cooperative compared to competitive superiors expected mutual assistance, communicated supportively, and gave assistance. Attribution affected the choice of influence methods and the attitudes of superiors. Superiors used threats and came to dislike the low effort subordinate, but wanted to work again with the low ability subordinate. Cooperation fostered attraction even when the other performed ineffectively, provided the reason was inadequate ability and not inadequate motivation. Evidence also suggests that competition creates a rigid response to the low performing subordinate whereas cooperative supervisors flexibly respond to the specific shortcoming of subordinates.     

Is Transformational Leadership Always Perceived as Effective? Male Subordinates' Devaluation of Female Transformational Leaders1

This study investigated the impact of the gender composition of the leader–subordinate dyad on the relationship between leaders' transformational leadership behavior and their subordinates' ratings of the leaders' effectiveness. There were 109 dyads of leaders (58 male, 51 female) paired with a subordinate who was either the same or a different gender from themselves. The relationship between a leader's self‐report on transformational leadership and their subordinates' evaluation of their performance was significantly less positive for female leaders with male subordinates than for female leaders with female subordinates. The male and female subordinates of male leaders rated their performance as equally effective, regardless of their levels of transformational leadership.     

Effects of leader sex,subordinate sex,and subordinate performance on the use of influence strategies

The study examined the effects of leader sex, subordinate sex, and subordinate performance on leaders' use of influence strategies. Forty-two male and 42 female engineering undergraduates participated in role-playing situations. Relative to females, males reported a greater likelihood of using such influence strategies as negative sanction, assertiveness, reward, and exchange. In general, subjects tended to employ more of negative sanction and assertiveness and less of reward and exchange when dealing with poorly performing subordinates than with well-performing subordinates. While the subordinate sex had little impact, few interactions were noted. Implications of these findings both for those in leadership roles and for future research are discussed.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Australian Bicentennial Meeting of Social Psychologists at Leura Bluemountains, Australia, August 1988. I thank Managal Dev, S. Pal, A. K. Tripathi, and Sanjay Tripathi for their help in collecting the data. I also extend my gratitude to an anonymous reviewer, and to Bijoy Boruah and Kanika Tandon for helpful comments.     

The effects of leader illegitimacy on leaders' and subordinates' responses to relinquishing power decisions

This research examined how leader illegitimacy affects leaders' and subordinates' responses to relinquishing power decisions. The processes underlying responses to leader illegitimacy and relinquishing power were also examined. Across four studies, participants were placed in leader roles (Studies 1a/1b) or subordinate roles (Studies 2a/2b) in an online competition. In Studies 1a/1b, participants assigned a leadership role learned, via a leadership skills test, that their leadership was illegitimate or legitimate. By contrast, in Studies 2a/2b, participants assigned a subordinate role were confronted with either an illegitimate leader who retained their power after performing poorly or a legitimate leader who received the leader role after a poor‐performing leader had relinquished their power. Results demonstrated that leaders who felt they did not belong in their leadership role relinquished more power when their leadership was illegitimate (vs. legitimate) and subordinates who felt less in control and greater anger supported illegitimate (vs. legitimate) leaders less.     

The Effects of Leader and Subordinate Characteristics in the Development of Leader–Member Exchange Quality1

This study investigated the contribution of both subordinate and leader characteristics in the development of leader-member exchange (LMX) quality. Data from 56 subordinate-superior dyads working at a large West-coast media company revealed that subordinates high in work self-efficacy were liked more by their supervisors, perceived to be more similar to their supervisors, experienced more positive LMX quality, and were rated as better performers than subordinates low in self-efficacy. Previous job experience, was related only to one outcome; supervisor's liking of the subordinate. Subordinates initially low in self-efficacy benefited from high LMX, as evidenced by increased end-of-program self-efficacy. Perceptions of similarity between supervisor and subordinate were found to be more important to LMX quality than actual demographic similarity. Leader self-efficacy and optimism predicted subordinates' ratings of LMX quality only for female supervisors. Unexpectedly, leader self-efficacy and optimism were related to the leaders' own ratings of LMX and subordinate performance.     

Facing an incompetent leader: The effects of a nonexpert leader on subordinates' perception and behaviour

We investigated the effects of a leader's task-incompetence on how subordinates perceive and interact with their leader. In Study 1, 80 participants in a subordinate role interacted via e-mail and in Study 2, 80 participants interacted face-to-face with either a competent or an incompetent leader on a problem-solving task. Participants' dominance behaviour, how much they resisted the leader's influence, their perception of the leader, and their task involvement were assessed. As predicted, subordinates perceived the leader's incompetence as a lack of power and compensated for it by taking on a more powerful position themselves (i.e., more dominance behaviour, more resistance to the leader's influencing attempts). In sum, having a task-incompetent leader affects not only the subordinates' perception of the leader but also how the subordinate interacts with the leader.     

Race of ratee and anonymity of rater: a study comparing students with practitioners as performance appraisers

123 students and 123 nonstudent supervisors viewed videotapes which displayed four supposed subordinate supervisors, two African Americans and two Caucasians, who individually described their respective performances during the past year. After being told either that the supposed subordinates would or that they would not have access to the performance rating, the subjects rated the performance of those subordinate supervisors. While anonymity of rater and race of rater had no evaluative effect on the performance ratings given by the nonstudent subjects, the student subjects gave higher ratings when they believed that their ratings would be made public. Also, the nonstudent subjects' ratings differed as a function of whether they worked closely with others of another race and as a function of the frequency with which they actually discussed performance evaluations with their own subordinates.     

Supervisors' performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of two variables on supervisors' performance feedback to subordinates: (1) the valence of the subordinate's performance, that is, whether the subordinate has performed well or poorly, and (2) the degree to which the supervisor's monetary outcomes are dependent on the subordinate's performance. It was hypothesized that supervisors would give subordinates feedback less often about instances of poor performance than about instances of good performance, but that when given, their feedback about poor performance would be more specific than their feedback about good performance. It was also hypothesized that supervisors would give feedback more often under conditions of high outcome dependence than under conditions of low outcome dependence. The results strongly supported the two performance valence hypotheses. The outcome dependence hypothesis was also supported, but only when the subordinate exhibited a pattern of gradually worsening performance. The implications of these findings are discussed, as are directions for future research.     

Expectation of success following noncontingent punishment in introverts and extraverts

Recent findings indicate that extraverts are more likely than introverts to continue responding in the face of punishment and frustrating nonreward (Newman & Kosson, 1984; Tiggemann, Winefield, & Brebner, 1982). The current study investigates whether extraverts' expectations for success are, similarly, resistant to interruption and alteration. To test this hypothesis, 50 introverted and 50 extraverted male undergraduates were exposed to pretreatment with either a 50% level of noncontingent reward or a 50% level of noncontingent punishment. As predicted, there were significant Group X Pretreatment interactions on all dependent measures. In comparison to those introverts who received the punishment pretreatment, extraverts exposed to the same pretreatment placed larger wagers on their ability to succeed, and reported higher levels of perceived control. In addition, relative to their estimates for the pretreatment task, extraverts exposed to noncontingent punishment increased their expectation for success, whereas introverts exposed to noncontingent punishment decreased their performance expectations. No differences were observed between the two groups following pretreatment with noncontingent reward. The results suggest that extraverts are characterized by a distinctive reaction to punishment involving response facilitation as opposed to response inhibition.     

领导者性别身份的评价差异：基于内隐领导理论的实证分析

本研究基于内隐领导理论,运用配对问卷法,探究领导者性别身份的三种评价差异：自我评价与下属评价的差异,男性领导与女性领导的下属评价差异,男性下属与女性下属的评价差异。结果显示,与领导者自评的性别身份相比,下属易高估领导者的男性化;且下属评价男性领导的男性化显著高于女性化,而评价女性领导时两者并不存在显著差异。此外,男性下属对领导男性化的评价高于女性下属的评价。     

Females in charge: Effects of sex of subordinate and romantic attachment status upon self-ratings of dominance

Female, male, and mixed-sex dyads in which one member was assigned the leader role interacted and rated their own dominance throughout the interaction. The effects of gender and romantic attachment status (whether one has an exclusive dating partner or is “unattached” and free to go out with someone new) upon these self-ratings of dominance within the interaction were examined. The results showed that both leaders and subordinates perceived female leaders to be less dominant than male leaders. In addition, members of mixed-sex pairs rated themselves as less dominant than did those in same-sex pairs. Female leaders paired with males rated themselves least dominant and unattached female leaders interacting with males rated themselves least dominant of all. Female subordinates rated themselves as less dominant when with male leaders than when with female leaders, while the effect of the gender of the leader was insignificant for male subordinates. The results are discussed as evidence of a role conflict created by the contradictory roles of “dominant” leader and “subordinate” female, roles described by the sex role stereotypes prevalent in our culture.     

Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes,perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research

Despite decades of research on the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and employee attitudes, perceptions, and performance, no comprehensive examination of these relationships has been reported in the literature. This paper reports the results of two studies that address this issue. In the first study, data from 20 new samples were gathered on the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and some criterion variables that have not been examined extensively in previous research. In the second study, a meta-analytic review was conducted incorporating both the new and existing research in order to provide estimates of the bivariate relationships between these leader behaviors and a variety of employee criterion variables across 78 studies containing 118 independent samples. Results of regression analyses designed to control for the effects of the other leader behaviors showed that: (a) the relationships between leader reward and punishment behaviors and employee attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors were more functional when the rewards or punishments were administered contingently than when they were administered non-contingently, and (b) these leader reward and punishment behaviors were strongly related to two variables (employees’ perceptions of justice and role ambiguity) that were expected to be key mediators of the relationships between these leader behaviors and the employee criterion variables. In addition, meta-analytic evidence from longitudinal studies suggested that the same leader behavior can be a cause of some employee criterion variables, and a consequence of others. Implications of these findings for future research in the area are discussed.     

Centrality and charisma: comparing how leader networks and attributions affect team performance

When leaders interact in teams with their subordinates, they build social capital that can have positive effects on team performance. Does this social capital affect team performance because subordinates come to see the leader as charismatic? We answered this question by examining 2 models. First, we tested the charisma-to-centrality model according to which the leader's charisma facilitates the occupation of a central position in the informal advice network. From this central position, the leader positively influences team performance. Second, we examined the centrality-to-charisma model according to which charisma is attributed to those leaders who are socially active in terms of giving and receiving advice. Attributed charisma facilitates increased team performance. We tested these 2 models in 2 different studies. In the first study, based on time-separated, multisource data emanating from members of 56 work teams, we found support for the centrality-to-charisma model. Formal leaders who were central within team advice networks were seen as charismatic by subordinates, and this charisma was associated with high team performance. To clarify how leader network centrality affected the emergence of charismatic leadership, we designed Study 2 in which, for 79 student teams, we measured leader networking activity and leader charisma at 2 different points in time and related these variables to team performance measured at a third point in time. On the basis of this temporally separated data set, we again found support for the centrality-to-charisma model.     

A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF LEADER REWARD BEHAVIOR, SUBORDINATE EXPECTANCIES, AND SATISFACTION

Positive and punitive leader reward behavior and their longitudinal relationships with subordinate expectancies and satisfaction were studied in a large manufacturing organization. Longitudinal data were collected approximately one year apart from 132 managerial, engineering and supervisory employees. Cross-lagged correlations suggested that positive leader reward behavior was causally related to higher effort-to-performance expectancy, as well as higher satisfaction with work, opportunities for promotion and overall satisfaction. Punitive leader reward behavior was suggested to be causally related to lower satisfaction with work, supervision and overall satisfaction. Implications were discussed for the use of leader reward behavior and for future research.     

The Relationship of Personality test Scores to School Marks and Intelligence Quotients

Summary

After Kipnis et al., it was hypothesized that superiors who believe they employ strong means of influence attribute the behavior of their subordinates to that influence, devalue the contributions of their subordinates, and increase the social distance between themselves and their subordinates. Also, the effects of superior power from the viewpoint of the subordinate were assessed. With the use of different measures of power, attribution, and performance from Kipnis et al. and a sample of 77 female and male American nurses, it was found that superiors who perceive themselves to be relatively powerful report a greater social distance from their subordinates than less powerful superiors. Kipnis et al.'s other findings generally were not replicated. Examined subordinate reactions were shown to be minimal. The limitations of the study and the need to further explore the role of superior power in work settings are discussed.