R E S E A R C H
includes research articles that
focus on the analysis and
resolution of managerial and
academic issues based on
analytical and empirical or
case research
Superior-Subordinate Relationships
and Satisfaction in Indian Small
Business Enterprises
Mainuddin Afza
Executive
Summary
KEY WORDS
Leader Power
Job Satisfaction
Organizational
KEY WORDS
Commitment
Privatization
Performance-Contingent
Reward
Indian Banking
Expert/Referent Power
Efficiency
Bases
Performance
This paper has used the hierarchy-based power system by French and Raven (1959) for researching
the motivational potential in small business manufacturing enterprises. Studies in this area have
been conducted but most of them are in the US, a country that is characterized by favourable
demographic and other infrastructural environmental factors. However, this study used data from
small business enterprises in India which is a fast developing economy though it does not yet have
the logistics and the techno-economic infrastructure like the one in the US.
One primary objective of this study was to see if the findings from an emerging economy are
different from those of developed countries. Another objective was to get insights into the
hierarchical motivation dynamics in the Indian enterprises. Indian environment is different from the
US’ in two important respects: the existence of high power-distance in the organizational
hierarchies (as opposed to low power-distance in the US), and the market life cycle driven maturity
level of Michel Porter’s (1985) industry forces. The ultimate objective of this study was to investigate
the relationship between bases of leader power and several criterion variables such as commitment,
satisfaction, intent to leave, and compliance.
Some of the findings of the study are as follows:
The power bases are influential predictors in the US, a society that is characterized by high
level of individualistic materialism, low power-distance, and strong entrepreneurial mental
behaviour.
In India, the power bases are likely to be even more influential because of the society’s
unique socio-cultural characteristics.
India’s social environment is high on power-distance that commands loyalty and possibly
accountability in small business sector.
The influence of Confucian philosophy and Gandhi’s values are likely factors that
differentiate India’s culture base from that of the US.
The results of this study are quite consistent with many of the findings of more recent studies
done in the US. There were some differences between the findings of the present and other recent
studies which may be attributed to the type of professionals who participated in this study and the
socio-economic and power-distance driven cultural differences between the US and India. One
important limitation of the present study is that the relationships discussed are correlational, not
causal. Experimental studies are needed to investigate causal links between the bases of leader
power and criterion variables. Moreover, further studies of superior-subordinate relationships and
their effects on motivation and compliance using India’s culture factors are needed to determine
the relevance and applicability of US-based studies in India.
Note: This paper was presented in the 17th Annual USA SBE National Conference held during January 23-25,
2003 at Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, USA.
11
VIKALPA • VOLUME 30 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2005
11
T
he superior-subordinate relationship has been a
long time focus of discussion and investigation.
In this age of intense inter-company rivalry,
dynamics of such relationship can make or break an
organization. Intense competition is also on the rise in
fast emerging industrialized countries such as India
(Raman, 2000). How to manage the superior-subordinate relationship to serve an organization’s best longterm interest is an open question. However, all agree that
somehow the relationship has to be managed to provide
superior performance and continued productivity.
This study investigates the impact of different power
bases on subordinates’ organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, attitudinal and behavioural compliances,
and the propensity to leave jobs. Previous studies have
limitations on measurement and analysis. Moreover,
findings of these studies cannot be generalized for small
business conditions. This study utilizes a modified
instrument that fits into the small business situation and
has been used to measure French and Raven’s (1959)
supervisory power bases. It is based on the responses
from approximately 350 employees in the production,
marketing, and office administration departments of 25
manufacturing companies from the Durgapur industrial
belt in the state of West Bengal in India. The number
of employees in each of these companies ranges from
150 to 350.
Power is the core of the superior-subordinate relationship. Several classifications of the supervisory power
have been presented by researchers over a period of
time. However, the bases of power taxonomy by French
and Raven (1959)—coercive, reward, legitimate, expert
and referent—still appear to be fairly representative as
well as well accepted by scholars (Cobb, 1980; Shukla,
1982). In an organizational setting, a superior applies
power to get things done by the subordinates. How is
power used at the workplace? How should power be
used? The answers may seem immaterial as long as the
mission is accomplished. However, in the small business
environment, the use of power may be more central to
success. In both large and small organizations, it is often
found that the subordinates’ commitment to their jobs
is weak, job satisfaction is low, turnover rates are high,
and the subordinates’ attitudes and behaviours are not
positively reflecting the organization’s expectations,
values, and cultures. These consequences happen when
superiors do not or rather poorly understand the dynamics of the contextual basis of power they use to build
12
and manage their relationships with the fellow subordinates. Consequently, in the environment of intense
inter-company competition and quickest response time
(QRT) imperative, organizations which fail to unbind
the dynamics of power also fail to sustain productivity
momentum. Small business enterprises enjoy greater
advantage of being flexible and capable of responding
quickly to market changes but, historically, small businesses are also known for not underestimating or ignoring their human capital as an important source of productivity. Small businesses which are typically short of
cash and other resources are also notoriously obsessed
with their bottom line.
SMALL BUSINESS IN INDIA
India is an emerging industrialized nation and has been
experiencing fast growth in its small business sector over
the past decade. Several empirical studies have been
conducted involving power and its effectiveness using
data mostly from the large and small business sectors
of the US. Lately, a few similar studies have also been
made comparing the US experience with that of other
countries such as Canada and some East European
countries (Lussier and Hornsby, 2000; Walton, 1988). In
India, at least one study (Kumar, 2001) was carried out
which examined the growth of small business entrepreneurship and the underlying factors for such rapid growth
and success. Kumar’s work did use some internal factors
(e.g., authority and reward) as the criteria that are attributed to success, but it did not try to examine the role
of power base. It is also unclear as to whether these
findings can be generalized for the situations in the
South Asian countries that differ from the US and the
other Western countries in Europe and North America
in terms of economic complexities, infrastructure, demographic variables, and socio-cultural conditions. Hofstede’s (1980) model of national culture has clearly identified the South Asian countries and the major Western
countries at the opposite ends of the same continuum
on cultural variables such as power-distance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity-femininity. Moreover, Hofstede and Bond (1988) also asserted that such
differences have implications for productivity and success which may be different in countries with different
cultural characteristics.
India’s democratic political system has provided
the country with a stable and consistent economic environment. However, since the country became indeSUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE RELATIONSHIPS
12
pendent in 1947, its political leadership never experimented with market-based economic system to foster a
rapid economic and technological growth. It is only after
the demise of Communist system worldwide that India’s
political leadership in 1993 changed its policy and
embraced a more market-based economic system and
open trade policies with other countries of the world.
The effect of the policy over the last ten years has been
enormous. The newly emerging small business industries have already become a major contributor to the
country’s gross domestic product and the most important source of employment for the Indian professionals
and workers (Annual Economic Bulletin, 2001). Also, the
intensity of inter-company rivalry in the small business
enterprises has risen to a level where variables such as
quality decisions, quick decisions, and their efficient
implementation appear to be the vital contributing factors in the organizations’ ultimate success.
In this fast-paced environment, leadership and
power have become the central behavioural concerns.
The objective of the present study is to examine issues
related to supervisory leadership influence on productivity and subordinates’ performance in India’s small
manufacturing enterprises. French and Raven’s (1959)
taxonomy of power bases has been used to examine the
relationships between different types of power that a
supervisor uses (coercive, reward, legitimate, expert,
and referent) and the followers’ work-related attitude
and behaviour such as organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, propensity to leave, and attitudinal and
behavioural compliances after correcting the deficiencies discussed above.
EFFECTIVENESS OF LEADER POWER AND
RELATED ISSUES
In the US, earlier studies on leader power generally
indicated that personal power bases (expert and referent) were more effective than position power bases
(coercive, reward, legitimate). Recent studies (Morrow,
1997; Choi and Behling, 1997) on leadership in organizational setting show that performance-contingent reward is positively associated with satisfaction and
performance of subordinates. However, performancecontingent coercive power base was not associated with
satisfaction or performance of subordinates (Tepper,
2000).
Organizational commitment refers to “an active relationship with the organization such that individuals are
willing to give something of themselves in order to
contribute to the organization’s well-being” (Mowday,
Steers and Porter, 1979). According to Korman, Greenhaus
and Badin (1977), organizational commitment is a tendency to remain in one’s present organization as a result
of perceived benefits acquired in one’s current employment compared to employment opportunities elsewhere.
In the area of organizational behaviour, there were
numerous studies on leader power or organizational
commitment but little has been done to investigate the
relationship between the two constructs. In sociological
literature, following the works of Etzioni (1961, 1968)
and others, Franklin (1975) found support for the proposition that the more normative (care-oriented) the power,
the greater the commitment. He also reported that utilitarian (punishment-oriented) power was less effective
in developing commitment to the organization. In terms
of the French and Raven (1959) framework, one would
expect a positive relationship between reward, expert,
and referent power bases and organizational commitment and an inverse or non-significant relationship
between coercive and legitimate power bases and commitment.
Job satisfaction refers to the persistent feelings a
person has toward his work. The studies by Bachman
(1968), Bachman, Smith and Slesinger (1966), and
Bachman, Bowers and Marcus (1968) indicated that expert
and referent power bases were positively related to the
job satisfaction of employees and coercive power bases
were negatively related to satisfaction. Reward and
legitimate power bases were not consistently related to
job satisfaction. Burke and Wilcox (1971) found similar
relationships between the five power bases and employee satisfaction. Studies on leadership by Sims and
Szilagyi (1975) and Podsakoff, Todor and Skov (1982)
found that performance-contingent reward behaviour of
the leader was positively correlated with job satisfaction.
However, performance-based punishment behaviour of
a superior had no impact whatsoever on the subordinate’s job satisfaction.
Propensity to leave refers to the inclination or tendency to leave the job. Student (1968) argues that
employee’s withdrawal measures were negatively related to supervisor’s referent power base. Ivancevich
and Donnelly (1970) found a negative relationship between sales managers’ expert and referent bases of power
and sales representatives’ excused absenteeism. Busch
(1980) reported that sales managers’ expert and referent
13
VIKALPA • VOLUME 30 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2005
13
power bases were negatively related to the salespersons’
propensity to leave in two out of three firms surveyed.
Compliance is that criterion measure in this study
that is most directly linked to the outcome of power use.
The most appropriate criterion measure should be based
on followers’ compliance with leader’s influence attempts. Earlier studies on French and Raven’s (1959)
power typology frequently touched upon subordinates’
compliance and effectiveness in relation to supervisor’s
personal power bases (Bachman, 1968; Bachman, Bowers and Marcus, 1968; Bachman, Smith and Slesinger,
1966; Fontaine and Beerman, 1977; Ivancevich and
Donnelly, 1970; Patchen, 1974; Spekman, 1979; Student,
1968). In a major study, Warren (1968) found that the
use of five types of power by the principals was positively associated with total conformity of the teachers.
The coefficient of correlation (r) between referent power
and conformity was the highest (r = 0.75). Studies by
Dunne, Stahl and Melhart (1978) and Thamhain and
Gemmill (1974) indicated that expertise and professional
challenge were also important reasons for compliance
with the instructions of the project managers. In another
study by Banker et al. (1996), using data from small size
CPA firms in the Quebec Province of Canada, it was
found that expertise, professional challenge, and target
dates are the most important reasons for compliance
with the superiors’ instructions. These studies generally
indicated that subordinates perceived reward and coercive power as weak reasons for compliance with the
wishes of the superior. Expert and referent, and to some
extent, legitimate power bases generally induce both
public and private compliance. These studies did not
distinguish between attitude-based compliance and
behaviour-based compliance; the former indicates the
extent to which an employee wants to follow his superior’s
directives or wishes while the latter focuses on the extent
to which a subordinate actually carries out the instructions or wishes of his supervisor (Rahim and Buntzman,
1987). A power base is effective to the extent to which
it can induce both attitudinal and behavioural compliances.
METHODOLOGY
Measures
Rahim Leader Power Inventory (RLPI) has been used to
measure the five French and Raven (1959) bases of
supervisory power. In the current study, the instrument
14
has been slightly modified. Questions that were irrelevant for the targeted small business companies in India
were dropped from the questionnaire. The remaining 26item instrument used a 5-point Likert scale to measure
the perceptions of subordinates regarding how much of
each power base was possessed by their superiors.
Reward and coercive power sub-scales were designed
to measure the perceptions of subordinates to the extent
of which their superiors could provide rewards or
administer punishment respectively contingent upon
performance. A higher score indicates a greater power
base of a supervisor. A study by Rahim and Afza (1993)
provided evidence of construct and criterion-related
validities of the instrument.
Organizational commitment was measured with the
short form of the organizational commitment questionnaire (Porter et al., 1974). This instrument contained nine
items; for the current study, each item was cast on a 5point Likert scale. The responses to the items were
averaged to create a continuous scale of organizational
commitment. Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979) summarized a series of studies which present evidence of
satisfactory retest (ranging from 0.82 to 0.93) reliabilities
and predictive, convergent, and discriminant validities
of the scale.
Job satisfaction was measured with the job descriptive index (Smith, Kendall and Hulin, 1969). An ‘S’
describes a respondent’s satisfaction by means of ‘yes,’
‘?’ or ‘no’ response to each of the 18 adjectives. The subscale was constructed by averaging the ‘S’ responses
which ranged between 0 and 3. A higher score indicated
greater satisfaction from work. Several studies have
reported high reliability, construct, and criterion
validities of the instrument (Imparato, 1972).
Propensity to leave was measured with the following
two items: “If circumstances permitted, I would jump
at the chance to accept a job in another organization”
(Martin and Hunt, 1980). “If I was completely free to
choose, I would prefer to continue working in this
organization” (Donnelly and Ivancevich, 1975). The items
were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale was
constructed by averaging the ‘S’ responses to the items.
A higher score indicated greater propensity to leave.
Donnelly and Ivancevich (1975) and Martin and Hunt
(1980) provided evidence of the scale’s criterion validity
but not reliability.
Attitudinal and behavioural compliances were measured with ten items, e.g., “I like to do what my superior
SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE RELATIONSHIPS
14
suggests” (attitudinal), “I comply with the instruction
of my superior” (behavioural) developed by Rahim (1986).
Each item was cast on a 5-point Likert scale. The subscales for attitudinal and behavioural compliances were
constructed by averaging the responses to five items for
each sub-scale with the superior’s directives and wishes.
Rahim (1986) provided evidence of construct and criterion validities of the sub-scales. The internal consistency
reliabilities of the sub-scales were above 0.80.
Sample
A questionnaire was prepared with the above measures
and given to 353 employees from 25 manufacturing
companies in the Durgapur industrial zone in the state
of West Bengal, India. The employees were randomly
chosen from three departments of the targeted companies: production, marketing, and office administration.
The owners/chief managers of the companies provided
a complete list of the employees of these three departments.
The qualifications of the employees ranged from
high school graduates to college graduates, engineers,
chemists, cost accountants, and other professionals. The
respondents represented different levels of educational
attainment: high school graduates (n=52), bachelor’s
degree (n=151), master’s degree (n=105), and cost accountants/analysts (n=33). The average work experience was more than 18 years for the top managers with
technical expertise (n=32), 21 years for the senior engineers as mid-level managers (n=82), and 17 years for the
computer specialists and others (n=38). The average
work experience of the managers who are generalists at
different levels is 16 years at the top level (n=14), 12 years
at the mid-level (n=49), and 16 years at the lower level
(n=126) of organizational hierarchy. The average length
of work experience with the present company and the
age of the respondents ranged between 2 and 22 years
(SD=8.78) and 37 years (SD=11.35) respectively. Four of
the targeted companies were in operation for more than
25 years. One was in operation for 31 years. The remaining companies were relatively younger, i.e., less than ten
years old. The respondents were from more than 25
different companies covering six different industries.
Questionnaire and Procedure
A cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and
a self-addressed and post-paid envelope accompanied
the questionnaire. The respondents were informed that
for returning the completed questionnaires, they would
be entitled to a token gift. The management of the
participating companies was also promised a copy of the
overall survey report for their internal evaluation and
use. It was agreed by the CEOs of participating companies that the individual participants would fill out the
forms on time and without any interference from the
participants’ supervisors or other employees. The participants were requested to return their questionnaires
within two weeks from the day they were received. All
353 questionnaires were returned on time to a rented
post office box in Durgapur city. Twelve of them could
not be used because of instructional violations in the
response data. Data from the remaining 341 questionnaires were processed for output analysis.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The number of items, mean, standard deviations, and
internal consistency reliabilities of all the behavioural
variables as assessed by Cronbach (1951) alpha are shown
in Table 1.
Table 1 shows 17 instead of 18 items for the job
satisfaction sub-scale listed in the survey questionnaire.
For the construction of this sub-scale, total correlation
was dropped for one item that was negative. The reliability coefficients for all the variables were satisfactory
Table 1: Items, Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach Alpha of Independent and Dependent Variables
Sub-scales
Coercive
Reward
Legitimate
Expert
Referent
Organizational commitment
Job satisfaction
Propensity to leave
Attitudinal compliance
Behavioural compliance
No. of Items
Mean
Standard Deviation
Standardized Cronbach Alpha
9
5
6
6
7
9
17
2
7
8
4.17
3.31
4.91
4.71
4.60
5.61
4.04
2.85
4.24
4.88
0.93
0.67
0.49
0.81
0.76
1.12
0.37
0.98
0.43
0.49
0.73
0.67
0.55
0.81
0.86
0.83
0.67
0.83
0.79
0.80
15
VIKALPA • VOLUME 30 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2005
15
(Nunnally, 1978).
Table 2 shows zero-order correlations between the
five dependent and five independent variables. Fortytwo of the 45 correlations were significant at 0.05 levels.
The correlations between the dependent and independent variables were in the expected directions.
Regression Analysis
The regression analysis was run with the five power
bases as independent variables and commitment, satisfaction, intent to leave, and attitudinal and behavioural
compliances as the dependent variables with SPSS-X
computer package. The results in Table 3 show that the
test with Pillais’ criterion was significant approximately
at F=11.19, p<.0001). This indicated that there were
significant relationships between the two groups of
variables. However, the step-wise multivariate data
analysis was not shown in this paper. Table 3 presents
the results of multiple regression analysis which investigated these relationships.
Table 3 also shows that performance contingent
reward power and expert and referent power bases of
leaders positively influenced organizational commitment
of followers. The influence of performance-contingent
reward power and legitimate power bases on commitment was negative but non-significant. These results are
consistent with the literature.
Reward and referent power bases positively influenced job satisfaction. The influences of the remaining
power bases on job satisfaction were not significant. The
results are not entirely in accord with the earlier studies
which used single item instruments on power. These
studies showed that coercive power was inversely related to job satisfaction and reward power was ineffective in influencing employee job satisfaction. The results
of the current study relating to coercive and reward
power bases are consistent with the findings of Sims and
Szilagyi (1975) and Podsakoff, Todor and Skov (1982).
The non-significant relationship between expert power
and job satisfaction may be due to the nature of the
sample used in this study. To the extent the superiorsubordinate dynamics is influenced by the necessity of
technical compliance of job accomplishment, it is possible that the respondents of the study were not able or
did not care to influence their subordinates’ job satisfaction.
Table 3 shows that propensity to leave was positively influenced by coercive power and negatively
influenced by reward, expert, and referent power bases.
Legitimate power base was unrelated to propensity to
leave. The results are not fully in accord with the earlier
studies. The consensus among these studies was that
only personal power bases, such as expert and referent
power bases, negatively influenced employees’ propen-
Table 2: Zero-order Correlations
Variables
Coercive
Reward
Legitimate
Expert
Referent
Organizational commitment
Job satisfaction
Propensity to leave
Attitudinal compliance
Behavioural compliance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.00
0.42
1.00
0.54
0.38
1.00
0.15
0.33
0.39
1.00
0.05
0.54
0.39
0.58
1.00
0.17
0.39
0.24
0.41
0.55
1.00
0.12
0.34
0.16
0.46
0.43
0.58
1.00
-0.01
-0.18
-0.19
-0.29
-0.35
-0.70
-0.55
1.00
0.12
0.31
0.38
0.51
0.52
0.47
0.44
-0.37
1.00
0.31
0.28
0.51
0.31
0.27
0.24
0.19
-0.46
0.43
1.00
Note: r > .30 p < .05 (two-tailed).
Table 3: Multiple Regression Analysis
Independent
Variables
Coercive
Reward
Legitimate
Expert
Referent
R-square
Organizational
Commitment
-0.0753
-0.1843**
-0.0821
-0.1217*
-0.4842***
-0.36***
Job
Satisfaction
-0.0654
-0.2114*
-0.0872
-0.0943
-0.4439***
-0.32***
Propensity
to Leave
-0.1345*
-0.2192**
-0.1061
-0.2644**
-0.3561
-0.36***
Attitudinal
Commitment
-0.0537
-0.0987
-0.0658
-0.4345***
-0.4593***
-0.49***
Behavioural
Commitment
-0.1453
-0.0249
-0.4157***
-0.1944**
-0.0251
-0.36***
***, **, and * respectively indicate significance at less than 1%, 1%, and 5% level.
16
SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE RELATIONSHIPS
16
sity to leave. The results in this study clearly show that
both position (performance-contingent coercive and
reward) and personal power bases influenced employees’ propensity to leave.
The results show that expert and referent power
bases positively influenced attitudinal compliance and
legitimate and expert power bases positively influenced
behavioural compliance. It is not clear, however, why
referent power base failed to influence subordinates’
behavioural compliance. In a high power-distance society such as India, it is a real surprise. As a possible
explanation, it may be argued that in the small business
environment of any society, be it India or the US, the
challenge for short-term survival easily overshadows
many ideal long-term oriented and healthier managerial
practices. The results in this section were in accord with
the study by Rahim and Buntzman (1987). These were
also consistent with Warren’s (1968) study which reported that all the five power bases were correlated with
an overall measure of compliance. Warren’s (1968) study
computed rank-order correlations which compare well
with the zero-order correlations reported in Table 2.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between bases of leader power and several
criterion variables such as commitment, satisfaction,
intent to leave, and compliance. The validity of the
results depends, to a great extent, on the psychometric
adequacies of the measurement instruments and the
nature of the sample used. Therefore, an attempt was
made to select psychometrically sound measures of the
independent and dependent variables and to collect data
with these measures from a random sample of managers
from the selected small business enterprises in Durgapur industrial zone. This study indicated that performance-contingent reward power base and expert and
referent power bases of the leaders were more effective
in influencing the followers’ organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, propensity to leave, and attitudinal and
behavioural compliance. However, the correlations
between the variables were found to be stronger in India
than those in the US. The performance-contingent coercive power was ineffective in influencing any significant outcome from the followers. This finding is consistent with the findings of the same study in the US
(Rahim and Afza, 1993). The legitimate power base was
only effective in enhancing behavioural compliance. Too
much dependence on this power base alone to gain
compliance may not be effective because this power base
cannot induce other positive outcomes from the subordinates.
This study has partly replicated the results of an
earlier study using data from the US accountants (Rahim
and Afza, 1993). The latter study was more comprehensive in scope. The current study did not replicate any
other study even partially because of the shortcoming
of the pervious studies as discussed before. Rahim (1986)
and Podsakoff and Schriesheim (1984) particularly noted
the deficiencies of the coercive and reward sub-scales
of the two instruments used in the earlier studies. As
can be seen, the inconsistencies in the results of the
earlier studies were with these two sub-scales.
The results of this study are consistent with many
of the findings of more recent studies done in the US
(Tepper, 2000; Ball et al., 1994). There were some major
differences between the findings of the present and other
recent studies which may be attributed to the type of
professionals who participated in this study and the
socio-economic and cultural differences between the US
and India. One important limitation of the present study
is that the relationships discussed are correlational and
not causal. Experimental studies are needed to investigate causal links between the bases of leader power
and criterion variables.
The findings of this study can be used to re-examine
and revitalize an organization’s motivation environment
in small business enterprises. However, further studies
are needed to determine how leaders in small business
organizational settings in less developed socio-economic
and cultural environments effectively influence their
subordinates. In the absence of new evidence, we can
conclude that performance-contingent reward and expert and referent power bases are most effective in
influencing subordinates to achieve individual and
organizational objectives. These power bases are influential predictors in the US, a society that is characterized
by high level of individualistic materialism, low powerdistance, and strong entrepreneurial mental behaviour.
In India, the power bases are likely to be even more
influential because of the society’s unique socio-cultural
characteristics. India’s social environment is high on
power-distance that commands loyalty and possibly
accountability in small business sector. The influence of
Confucian philosophy and Gandhian values are also the
likely factors that differentiate India’s culture base from
that of the US. However, further studies of superior-
17
VIKALPA • VOLUME 30 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2005
17
subordinate relationships and their effects on motivation and compliance using India’s cultural factors are
needed to determine the relevance and applicability of
the US-based studies in India.
REFERENCES
Annual Economic Bulletin (GOI)(2001). Reserve Bank of India,
Vol. XXIX-PS.
Bachman, J G (1968). “Faculty Satisfaction and the Dean’s
Influence: An Organizational Study of Twelve Liberal
Arts Colleges,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(1), 5561.
Bachman, J G; Smith, C G and Slesinger, J A (1966). “Control, Performance, and Satisfaction: An Analysis of
Structural and Individual Effects,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 4, 127-136.
Bachman, J G; Bowers, D G and Marcus, P M (1968). “Bases
of Supervisory Power: A Comparative Study in Five
Organizational Settings,” in Tannunbaum, A S (ed.),
Control in Organizations, New York: McGraw Hill, 229238.
Ball, Gail A; Trevino, Linda K and Sims Jr., Henry P (1994).
“Just and Unjust Punishment: Influence on Subordinate
Performance and Citizenship,” The Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), April, 299-322.
Banker, Rajiv D; Lee, Seok-Young; Potter, Gordon and
Srinivasan, Dhinu (1996). “Contextual Analysis of
Performance Impacts of Outcome-based Incentive Compensation,” Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 920948.
Burke, R J and Wilcox, D A (1971). “Bases of Supervisory
Power and Subordinate Job Satisfaction,” Canadian
Journal of Behavioral Science, 3, 183-193.
Busch, P (1980). “The Sales Manager’s Bases of Social Power
and Influence upon the Sales Force,” Journal of Marketing, 44(3), 91-101.
Choi, Thomas Y and Behling, Orlando C (1997). “Top
Managers and TQM Success: One More Look After All
These Years,” Academy of Management Executive, 11(1),
37-48.
Cobb, A T (1980). “The Informational Influence in the
Formal Organization: Perceived Sources of Power
among Work Unit Peers,” Academy of Management Journal, 23(1), 155-161.
Cronbach, L J (1951). “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal
Structure of Tests,” Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Donnelly, J H and Ivancevich, J M (1975). “Role Clarity and
the Salesman,” Journal of Marketing, 39(1), 71-74.
Dunne, E J; Stahl, M J and Melhart Jr., L J (1978). “Influence
Sources of Project and Functional Managers in Matrix
Organizations,”Academy of Management Journal, 21(1),
135-140.
Etzioni, A (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, New York: The Free Press.
Etzioni, A (1968). “Organizational Dimensions and their
Interrelationships: A Theory of Compliance,” in Indik,
BP and Berrien, FK (eds.), (eds.), People, Groups, and
Organizations, Columbia, NY: Teachers College Press,
94-109.
Fontaine, G and Beerman, J (1977). “Affective Consequences of Social Power: Power Holder and Target Expectancies Associated with Different Types of Power,”
Psychological Reports, 40, 771-774.
Franklin, J L (1975). “Power and Commitment: An Empir-
18
ical Assessment,” Human Relations, 28(8), 737-753.
French Jr., J R P and Raven, Bertram (1959). “The Bases
of Social Power” in Cartwright, D (ed.), Studies in Social
Power, Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 150167.
Imparato, N (1972). “Relationship between Porter’s Need
Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Job Descriptive
Index,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(5), 397-405.
Ivancevich, J M and Donnelly, J H (1970). “Leader Influence
and Performance,” Personnel Psychology, 23(4), 539-549.
Hofstede, Geert (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work Related Values, London: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, Geert and Bond, Michael H (1988). “The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic
Growth,” Organizational Dynamics, 23(4), 539-549.
Korman, A K; Greenhaus, J H and Badin, I J (1977). “Personnel Attitudes and Motivation,” Annual Review of
Psychology, 28, 175-196.
Kumar, Basant L (2001). “Tide of Small Business Growth
in India and its Impact on the Country’s GDP,” Personnel
Journal, 44(1), 17-29.
Lussier, R and Hornsby, P K (2000). European Management
Systems, London: McGraw-Hill.
Martin, Thomas N and Hunt, J G (1980). “Social Influence
and Intent to Leave: A Path-Analytic Process Model,”
Personnel Psychology, 33(3), 505-528.
Morrow, Paula C (1997). “The Measurement of TQM Principles and Work-Related Outcomes,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 363-376.
Mowday, R T; Steers, R M and Porter, L W (1979). “The
Measurement of Organizational Commitment,” Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Nunnally, J C (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Patchen, M (1974). “The Locus and Basis of Influence on
Organizational Decisions,” Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 11(2), 195-221.
Podsakoff, P M and Schriesheim, C A (1984). “Measurement and Analytic Shortcomings in Field Studies of
French and Raven’s Bases of Social Power,” paper
presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the National
Academy of Management, Boston.
Podsakoff, P M; Todor, W D and Skov, R (1982). “Effects
of Leader Contingent and Non- contingent Reward and
Punishment Behaviors on Subordinate Performance and
Satisfaction,” Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 810821.
Porter, L W; Steers, R M; Mowday, R T and Boulian, P V
(1974). “Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction,
and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians,” Journal
of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.
Porter, Michael E (1985). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for
Analyzing Industries and Competitors, New York: The
Free Press.
Rahim, M A (1986). “Some Psychometric Properties of Two
Measures of French and Raven Bases of Power,” Journal
of Psychology, 120(5), 465-473.
SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE RELATIONSHIPS
18
Rahim, M A and Afza, M (1993). “Leader Power, Commitment, Satisfaction, Compliance, and Propensity to Leave
a Job among US Accountants,” Journal of Social Psychology, 133(5), 611-625.
Rahim, M A and Buntzman, G F (1987). “Supervisory Power
Bases, Styles of Handling Conflicts with Subordinates,
and Subordinate Compliance with Satisfaction,” Journal
of Psychology, 123(2), 195-210.
Raman, Sushil K (2000). “Enron Takes its Pipeline to India,”
Fortune, January 24, 127.
Shukla, R K (1982). “Influence of Power Bases in Organizational Decision Making: A Contingency Model,”
Decision Science, 13(3), 450-470.
Spekman, R E (1979). “Influence and Information: An
Exploratory Investigation of the Boundary Role of a
Person’s Basis of Power,” Academy of Management Journal, 22(1), 104-117.
Sims Jr., H P and Szilagyi, A D (1975). “Leader Reward
Behavior and Subordinate Satisfaction and Perform-
ance,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
14(3), 426-438.
Smith, P C; Kendall, L M and Hulin, C L (1969). The
Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement: A
Strategy for the Study of Attitudes, Chicago: Rand McNally.
Student, K R (1968). “Supervisory Influence and Workgroup Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(3),
188-194.
Tepper, Bennett J (2000). “Consequences of Abusive Supervision,” Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
Thamhain, H J and Gemmill, G R (1974). “Influence Styles
of Project Managers: Some Project Performance Correlates,” Academy of Management Journal, 17(2), 216-224.
Walton, Clarence C (1988). The Moral Manager in East Europe,
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Warren, D I (1968). “Power, Visibility, and Conformity in
Formal Organizations,” American Sociological Review,
33(6), 951-970.
Mainuddin Afza has done MBA from Youngstown State
University, Youngstown and Ph.D. from Moscow. He has been
teaching management courses for 27 years first in the Institute
of Business Administration, University of Dhaka and then
University of Wisconsin, Platteville. At present, he is with the
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg where he
teaches strategic management, small business management,
and international management. He has been the US State
Department’s Fulbright Scholar twice. His research interest
areas are motivation and performance at workplace and
emotional intelligence in small business firms. He has about
20 published empirical research papers in refereed journals.
e-mail: mafza@bloomu.edu
While we have gift of life,
it seems to me the only tragedy is to allow part of
us to die whether it is our spirit, our creativity or
our glorious uniqueness.
Gilda Radner
19
VIKALPA • VOLUME 30 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2005
19